Job insecurity climate The nature of the construct, its associations with outcomes, and its

relation to individual job insecurity

Lena Låstad

©Lena Låstad, Stockholm University 2015

Cover Illustration: Espen Terjesen, espenart.com

ISBN 978-91-7649-226-0

Printed in Sweden by Holmbergs, Malmö, 2015

Distributor: Department of Psychology, Stockholm University

Abstract

Work is an essential part of most people’s lives. With increasing flexibility

in work life, many employees experience job insecurity – they perceive that

the future of their jobs is uncertain. However, job insecurity is not just an

individual experience; employees can perceive that there is a climate of job

insecurity at their workplace as well, as people collectively worry about their

jobs. The overall aim of this thesis was to investigate the job insecurity

climate construct and how it relates to work- and health-related outcomes

and to individual job insecurity. Three empirical studies were conducted to

investigate this aim. Study I investigated the dimensionality of the job

insecurity construct by developing and testing a measure of job insecurity

climate − conceptualized as the individual’s perception of the job insecurity

climate at work − in a sample of employees working in Sweden. The results

indicated that individual job insecurity and job insecurity climate are

separate but related constructs and that job insecurity climate was related to

work- and health-related outcomes. Study II examined the effects of

individual job insecurity and job insecurity climate on work- and health-

related outcomes in a sample of employees working in a private sector

company in Sweden. The results showed that perceiving higher levels of job

insecurity climate than others in the workgroup was associated with poorer

self-rated health and higher levels of burnout. Study III tested the

relationship between individual job insecurity and job insecurity climate in a

sample of Flemish employees. The results indicated that individual job

insecurity is contagious, as individual job insecurity predicted perceptions of

job insecurity climate six months later. In conclusion, by focusing on

perceptions of the job insecurity climate, the present thesis introduces a new

approach to job insecurity climate research, showing that employees can

perceive a climate of job insecurity in addition to their own individual job

insecurity and, also, that this perception of the job insecurity climate at work

has negative consequences for individuals and organizations.

Keywords: Job insecurity climate, job insecurity, quantitative job insecurity,

qualitative job insecurity, referent-shift, organizational collective climate,

psychological collective climate, job satisfaction, work demands, work-

family conflict, self-rated health, burnout.

Sammanfattning

Arbetet spelar en central roll i de flesta människors liv. Det strukturerar ens

tid och ekonomi, det kan vara en arena för lärande och personlig utveckling,

arbetet kan vara en viktig arena för sociala kontakter, och det kan även vara

en del av ens identitet. Kort sagt, arbete är viktigt. Och just på grund av den

centrala roll som arbetet har kan det vara mycket stressande om individen

uppfattar att anställningen kan vara hotad. Detta gäller exempelvis vid

nedskärningar eller större omorganiseringar. Anställningsotrygghet –

definierat som en oro eller rädsla över att kanske förlora jobbet – är en

upplevelse som allt fler människor har i arbetslivet. Som en konsekvens av

ökade krav på flexibilitet i samhället generellt och arbetslivet specifikt, är

anställningsotrygghet dock inte enbart en individfråga. Otrygghet kan också

betraktas som ett socialt fenomen, det vill säga att anställda kollektivt oroar

sig över sina jobb och upplever ett klimat av anställningsotrygghet på en

arbetsplats.

Syftet med föreliggande avhandling var att undersöka anställningsotrygghet

som ett klimat, som en kollektiv upplevelse, och hur ett upplevt klimat av

anställningsotrygghet relaterar till arbets- och hälsorelaterade utfall, samt till

individuell anställningsotrygghet. I detta ingick att undersöka om individuell

anställningsotrygghet och ett klimat av anställningsotrygghet utgör två olika

upplevelser, alltså om anställda skiljer mellan sin egen oro och hur klimatet

är på arbetsplatsen. Ett stort antal studier, genomförda både i Sverige och

internationellt, har påvisat att anställningsotrygghet har negativa

konsekvenser både för arbetsgivare och för arbetstagare. Som individuell

upplevelse är anställningsotrygghet bland annat förknippat med lägre

arbetstrivsel, lägre grad av upplevd samhörighet med organisationen, en

starkare benägenhet att säga upp sig, samt sämre fysisk och psykisk hälsa.

Hittills har endast en handfull studier tittat på effekterna av

anställningsotrygghetsklimat på jobbet, och resultaten av dessa studier

indikerar att kollektiva upplevelser av otrygghet har liknande effekter som

individuell anställningsotrygghet. En följdfråga som uppkommer i samband

med detta är om klimat av anställningsotrygghet påverkar anställda negativt

– utöver effekten av den individuella oron för att själv förlora sitt arbete.

I avhandlingen ingår tre empiriska delstudier som syftar till att belysa dessa

frågor. Den första delstudien (Studie I) undersökte huruvida anställda skiljer

mellan egen oro kopplat till anställningen och ett upplevt klimat av

anställningsotrygghet. Studien genomfördes som en enkätstudie där 1380

personer, vilka bor och arbetar i Sverige deltog. Resultaten av Studie I ger

stöd för resonemanget att anställda skiljer mellan sin egen otrygghet och den

otrygghet som finns generellt i arbetsgruppen. Detta innebär bland annat att

anställda kan uppleva att det finns ett klimat av anställningsotrygghet på

jobbet – oberoende av huruvida de är oroliga över den egna anställningen. I

den andra delstudien (Studie II) undersöktes betydelsen av

anställningsotrygghet och anställningsotrygghetsklimat på gruppnivå för

arbets- och hälsorelaterade utfall på individnivå. Detta undersöktes i en

enkätstudie bland anställda i ett privat svenskt företag (N=126). Resultaten

visade att endast upplevelser av anställningsotrygghet som klimat kunde

betraktas som delade inom arbetsgruppen. Ett mer påtagligt upplevt klimat

av anställningsotrygghet var förknippat med sämre självskattad hälsa och

fler symptom på utbrändhet. I den tredje delstudien (Studie III) undersöktes

hur individuell anställningsotrygghet och anställningsotrygghetsklimat

relaterar till varandra. Syftet var att undersöka vilket av begreppen som

föregår det andra − den egna oron eller klimatet? Teoretiskt är båda

riktningarna möjliga; individuell anställningsotrygghet kan smitta från

individen och leda till ett klimat av anställningsotrygghet i arbetsgruppen,

men det är också tänkbart att ett klimat av anställningsotrygghet kan skapa

individuell anställningsotrygghet. Även denna studie gjordes med hjälp av

enkäter. Enkäterna riktades till läsare av en belgisk HR-tidning (N=419) och

datainsamlingen omfattade tre tillfällen. Resultaten av Studie III visade att

individuell anställningsotrygghet predicerade upplevt klimat av

anställningsotrygghet sex månader senare.

Föreliggande avhandling bidrar till en ökad förståelse för upplevelsen av

anställningsotrygghet generellt, och anställningsotrygghetsklimat specifikt.

Sammantaget indikerar resultaten av de tre delstudierna att

anställningsotrygghet både är ett individuellt och ett kollektivt fenomen; att

anställda kan uppleva otrygghet kopplad till såväl det egna arbetet som ett

klimat av otrygghet på jobbet. Upplevelsen av anställningsotrygghetsklimat

är − liksom individuell anställningsotrygghet − förknippat med negativa

arbets- och hälsorelaterade utfall, vilket talar för att arbetsgivare och

arbetslivsparterna bör prioritera insatser som kan förebygga

anställningsotrygghet bland anställda.

Acknowledgements

To be given the opportunity to write a doctoral thesis is truly a privilege. I

would therefore like to start by gratefully acknowledging Stockholm Stress

Center (SSC) for the financial support that made this all possible. I also wish

to thank all those who took the time to fill out our questionnaires. Without

your input I could not have written this thesis.

I am forever grateful for the support I received from my three supervisors

throughout this journey. To my main supervisor, Associate Professor Erik

Berntson: Thank you Erik for your intellectual guidance and your support

throughout these years! Knowing that I could turn to you for help and advice

gave me the courage to jump higher than I would have dared to do alone. I

also want to thank my two co-supervisors, Professor Magnus Sverke and

Associate Professor Katharina Näswall. You hired me as a research assistant

when I was enrolled in the Master’s program and gave me a first taste of

what research is all about. Thank you both for taking a chance on me back

then, and for inspiring me to pursue a doctoral degree in psychology. Thank

you Magnus for always having the bigger picture in mind and for teaching

me the value of being stringent and logical as well. Also, thank you for

including me in projects beyond the thesis work. Katharina: Even though

you literally moved to the other side of the world at the beginning of this

project, you have been present every step of the way. Thank you for being

such a great support to me during these years and for being a great

discussion partner. Also, thank you for giving me such a warm welcome at

the University of Canterbury in New Zealand and for making my research

stay a great experience.

While working on this thesis, I have had the privilege of collaborating with a

number of other great people as well. I would like to extend my sincere

thanks to Professor Petra Lindfors, PhD Aram Seddigh, and PhD Tinne

Vander Elst for including the job insecurity climate measure in their data

collections and for being great co-authors. I also want to thank Professor

Hans De Witte for his co-authorship on the third paper, and for having

welcomed me to KU Leuven for two enjoyable and productive research

stays.

Professor Saija Mauno and Associate Professor Claudia Bernhard-Oettel

gave me valuable feedback on a previous version of this thesis. Thank you

for taking the time to review my work and for your insightful comments. I

also wish to give my sincere thanks to David Speeckaert for editing the

language in this thesis.

During these past years, I have had the pleasure of working together with

many great colleagues at the Department of Psychology, particularly in the

Division of Work and Organizational Psychology. Dear colleagues, dear

friends: Thank you all for being so helpful and supportive and thank you for

all the interesting and nice conversations about everything from research

questions and teaching to life in general. Also, thank you for readily guiding

me on my quest to understand the finer nuances (and mysteries) of Swedish

language and culture.

I have shared the experience of being a graduate student with many great

people at the Department of Psychology and the SSC Graduate School, and

some of them deserve a special thank you: Thank you Malin Mattson for

standing by me and keeping me company during the final period of thesis

writing. Hearing your typing next door made me try to keep up the pace!

Thank you Anne Richter for being the best office roommate any new PhD

student could have asked for, and for your friendship ever since. Thank you

Johanna Schwarz and Karin Schraml for all the good times we have shared

and for your support throughout these years. Thank you Constanze Eib for

making it more fun to go to the sports center, and for all your support. Thank

you Maria Öhrstedt for nudging me to take breaks from work, and thank you

Gabriella Eriksson for always being able to make me laugh. Last but not

least, a heartfelt thank you goes out to my patient and supportive friends

outside academia. Thank you for being such excellent partners in crime in

everything from coffee breaks to off-the-beaten-track adventures.

Finally, I wish to thank my parents, Nina and Stein Magne, my sister, Stina,

and my grandparents, Martha and Per, for their love and support, for

teaching me to keep a cool head and a warm heart, and for always cheering

me on.

Thank you!

Lena Låstad

Stockholm, August 2015

List of studies

This thesis is based on the following studies:

I. Låstad, L., Berntson, E., Näswall, K., Lindfors, P., & Sverke, M.

(2015). Measuring quantitative and qualitative aspects of the job

insecurity climate: Scale validation. Career Development

International, 20(3), 202-217.*

II. Låstad, L., Näswall, K., Berntson, E., Seddigh, A., & Sverke, M.

(2015). The roles of shared perceptions of job insecurity and job

insecurity climate for work- and health-related outcomes: A

multilevel approach. Manuscript submitted for publication.

III. Låstad, L., Vander Elst, T., & De Witte, H. (2015). On the reciprocal

relationship between individual job insecurity and job insecurity

climate. Manuscript submitted for publication.

* Reprinted with permission (© Emerald Group Publishing Limited)

Contents

Introduction .................................................................................................. 1 A job insecurity climate ............................................................................................ 3 The present thesis ..................................................................................................... 4

Perceptions at work .................................................................................... 7 Individual perceptions .............................................................................................. 7

Psychological climate ........................................................................................... 8 Psychological collective climate ......................................................................... 9

Shared perceptions ................................................................................................. 10 The sharing of perceptions through sensemaking ....................................... 10 A typology of composition models .................................................................. 11

Summary .................................................................................................................. 14

Job insecurity ............................................................................................. 15 Individual job insecurity ......................................................................................... 15

Quantitative and qualitative aspects of job insecurity ................................ 17 Job insecurity climate ............................................................................................. 18

Measuring job insecurity climate ..................................................................... 19 Consequences of job insecurity ............................................................................ 21

Individual job insecurity and outcomes ......................................................... 22 Job insecurity climate and outcomes ............................................................. 23

The relationship between individual job insecurity and job insecurity

climate ....................................................................................................................... 25 Concluding remarks ................................................................................................ 26

Summary of studies .................................................................................. 28 Study I – Measuring quantitative and qualitative aspects of the job

insecurity climate: Scale validation ..................................................................... 28 Background and aim .......................................................................................... 28 Methods ............................................................................................................... 30 Main findings and conclusions ......................................................................... 33

Study II – The roles of shared perceptions of job insecurity and job

insecurity climate for work- and health-related outcomes: A multilevel

approach ................................................................................................................... 34 Background and aim .......................................................................................... 34 Methods ............................................................................................................... 37 Main findings and conclusions ......................................................................... 38

Study III – On the reciprocal relationship between individual job

insecurity and job insecurity climate ................................................................... 38 Background and aim .......................................................................................... 38 Methods ............................................................................................................... 39 Main findings and conclusions ......................................................................... 42

Discussion ................................................................................................... 44 On the dimensionality of the job insecurity construct ...................................... 44 Job insecurity climate and outcomes ................................................................... 45 The relationship between individual job insecurity and job insecurity

climate ....................................................................................................................... 46 Methodological considerations .............................................................................. 47

On the use of self-reports ................................................................................ 47 Causality .............................................................................................................. 48 Generalizability of results ................................................................................. 49

Theoretical implications .......................................................................................... 50 Aggregation practices ........................................................................................ 50 What does it mean to share perceptions? ..................................................... 51

Practical implications .............................................................................................. 52 Conclusions ............................................................................................................... 53

References .................................................................................................. 55

1

Introduction

Having a job is the key to many positive aspects of society: it is a source of

income and social status, an arena for personal growth and learning, and a

social context; for many people, their professional role is also part of their

identity (Baumeister & Muraven, 1996; Jahoda, 1982). Considering these

benefits of employment, it is easy to understand that losing a job can be

devastating. In fact, involuntary job loss has been described as a major life

event, and it can be one of the most stressful experiences one can have next

to the death of a spouse, divorce, personal illness, or retirement (Holmes &

Rahe, 1967; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Similar to job loss, job insecurity,

that is, worrying about potentially losing one’s job, can also be a source of

trauma and life-disruption (Greenhalgh & Rosenblatt, 2010; Hartley,

Jacobson, Klandermans, & Van Vuuren, 1990). For individuals, job

insecurity can, for instance, have detrimental effects on life satisfaction

(Green, 2011), job satisfaction (Miana, González-Morales, Caballer, &

Peiró, 2011), mental health (Meltzer et al., 2010), and physical health

(Schreurs, Van Emmerik, Notelaers, & De Witte, 2010; Størseth, 2006) (for

meta-analysis results, see Cheng & Chan, 2008; Sverke, Hellgren, &

Näswall, 2002). From an organizational perspective, the potential

consequences include negative outcomes such as stronger turnover

intentions among employees (Emberland & Rundmo, 2010; Mauno,

Kinnunen, Mäkikangas, & Nätti, 2005) and less organizational commitment

(Bernhard-Oettel, De Cuyper, Schreurs, & De Witte, 2011). Job insecurity is

thus not just an unpleasant experience; it can have detrimental consequences

for both individuals and organizations (Burchell, Ladipo, & Wilkinson,

2005). While job loss entails a definite end to the employment contract, job

insecurity involves a sense of ambiguity regarding the continuity of the job.

Job insecurity is a reality for many employees today (Burgard, Brand, &

House, 2009; Lewchuk et al., 2015). The work life setting in which these

perceptions arise is generally characterized by globalization, economic

turmoil, fast technological development, tighter business margins, and often

high pressure (Gallie, Felstead, Green, & Inanc, 2013; Heery & Salmon,

2002). Cumulatively, these factors have created an increased demand for

flexibility in society. Flexibility is generally understood as “an ability to

react to changes” (Furåker, Håkansson, & Karlsson, 2007, p. 1). With regard

to work contexts, a distinction is often made between numerical and

functional flexibility (Atkinson, 1984; Nesheim, 2004). Numerical flexibility

2

is based on continuously adjusting staffing numbers to suit whether a lesser

or greater number of employees are needed (Abraham & Taylor, 1993). The

organization becomes flexible by limiting permanent employment to a group

of specialized core workers who perform organization-specific core tasks

(Parker, 1994). For work tasks that vary in accordance with production peaks

and troughs, or tasks that demand less skilled work, numerical flexibility can

be used to provide more peripheral workers or employees with nonstandard

work arrangements, such as temporary, on-call, or part-time workers

(Bernhard-Oettel, 2008; Houseman, 2001; Kalleberg, 2000; McLean Parks,

Kidder, & Gallagher, 1998). Functional flexibility, on the other hand, is an

approach that entails broadening the competency of employees in order to

meet qualitative changes in demand (Atkinson, 1984). With functional

flexibility, the content of the job is made flexible. At the employee level,

increased flexibility often translates into increased job insecurity in the sense

that either the continuity of the job (e.g., in connection with downsizing) or

the content of the job (e.g., regarding taking on different job tasks or losing

valued job features), or both, become uncertain. For instance, in a study

investigating the consequences of organizations’ use of temporary

employment, the proportion of temporary employees in an organization was

positively related to a climate of job insecurity (here, measured as an

aggregate of individual job insecurity perceptions) among employees with

permanent contracts (De Cuyper, Sora, De Witte, Caballer, & Peiró, 2009).

At the societal level, it could be argued that these changes regarding

employment flexibility create an insecure work force, a scenario in which

job insecurity is likely to occur (Burchell, 2009; Hartley et al., 1990; Heery

& Salmon, 2002). Job insecurity is thus not just an individual, private

concern; it affects the general workforce as well.

It has been estimated that 15.8% of employees within the European Union

perceived their jobs to be insecure in 2010. This percentage varied quite a lot

between countries, ranging from 3.3% (Estonia) to 48.5% (Slovakia); in

Sweden, 7.9% of workers were estimated to experience job insecurity

(Lübke & Erlinghagen, 2014). Split by industry, the proportion of workers in

EU member states who perceived job insecurity in 2010 varied between 10%

(public services) and 22% (construction) (Parent-Thirion, et al., 2012). Since

the initial period (early 2008) of the most recent financial crisis, the

prevalence of job insecurity perceptions increased in the EU member states

(European Commision, 2011). These findings may suggest that macro-level

factors are giving rise to job insecurity perceptions (cf. De Witte, 2005). This

is corroborated by what the International Labor Organization refers to as

“widespread perceptions of insecurity in the global labour market” (ILO,

2015, p. 30). It has, for instance, been shown that factors such as the

increased deregulation of labor markets in Europe (Chung & Van Oorschot,

2011; Lübke & Erlinghagen, 2014) and changes in the national or regional

unemployment rate can affect the prevalence of job insecurity in the working

3

population (Nätti, Happonen, Kinnunen, & Mauno, 2005). Individual

background characteristics, such as age and education (Näswall & De Witte,

2003), and personality traits, such as negative affectivity (for meta-analytic

results, see Keim, Landis, Pierce, & Earnest, 2014) may also influence the

emergence of job insecurity perceptions. However, developments in business

and work life that transcend individual-level factors are held to be the main

reason why job security has become a “sizeable social phenomenon” (De

Witte, 2005, p. 1).

In addition to what happens in the workforce at large, job uncertainty can

also spread within a workgroup or organization, and a job insecurity climate

can emerge (Sora, Caballer, Peiró, & De Witte, 2009). Picture a workplace

where rumors about downsizing, outsourcing, or other organizational

changes are rampant and everybody is on their toes. There could be a general

impression that business is going badly or that external competitors or new

technology might become a threat to the organization. In general, rumors and

conversations such as these can give rise to speculations that could increase

the feeling of threat (Bordia, Jones, Gallois, Callan, & DiFonzo, 2006;

DiFonzo & Bordia, 2000; DiFonzo, Bordia, & Rosnow, 1994). However,

what it means for individuals to work in such an environment, and what the

consequences are, are to a large degree still open questions. Moreover, little

is known about the relationship between individuals’ perceptions of job

insecurity regarding their own jobs and perceptions of a job insecurity

climate. The present thesis seeks to address these questions.

A job insecurity climate

Individuals bring different personal abilities, motivation levels, experiences,

and goals to their work. At work, or in the work context, individuals are in

most cases coworkers as well as individual employees − taking on different

roles and interacting and cooperating with others. Being in a social context

can affect what individuals pay attention to as well as how they understand

and interpret events at work (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978). In fact, shared task

representations (i.e., ‘‘any concept, norm, perspective, or process concerning

the team task that is held in common by team members’’) may be beneficial

for group functioning and performance because it makes coordination,

communication, and cooperation easy (van Ginkel & van Knippenberg,

2008, p. 83). This implies that workers’ reactions and behavior as a group

determine their collective effectiveness (Ehrhart & Raver, 2014; Hartley et

al., 1990).

Many experiences at work have both individual and social properties. In the

case of job insecurity, it has generally been studied as an individual

perception regarding one’s own job. Job insecurity can also be considered as

4

an aspect of the social climate at work, concerning the degree to which

workers perceive that there is a climate of job insecurity in their workgroup

or within the organization in general. Informally, a social climate can be

defined as “what it feels like to work here” (Schneider & Barbera, 2014, p.

591). A climate of job insecurity can consequently be described as a group

level phenomenon, in the sense that people collectively worry that they

might lose their jobs. But what is it like to work in such a work

environment? Considering the negative consequences associated with

individual job insecurity, it would be important to investigate the possible

effects of perceiving a social climate that is characterized by job insecurity.

A few previous studies have found negative effects of job insecurity climate

on work-related attitudes, similar to the effect of individual job insecurity

(De Cuyper et al., 2009; Sora et al., 2009). But many questions have yet to

be explored. For instance, one could ask whether the tendency is for

perceptions of a climate of job insecurity to be stressful in themselves,

regardless of the level of individual job insecurity, or if a climate of

insecurity is more of a compounding stressor on top of individual job

insecurity. Does job insecurity have the same effect on work- and health-

related outcomes regardless of which form it takes? In light of the potential

detrimental consequences of job insecurity, whether there is a causal relation

between perceiving one’s own job as insecure and perceiving a climate of

job insecurity becomes an important question. Altogether, the answers to

these questions may be of relevance both for future research and for Human

Resources professionals and leaders.

The present thesis

Until quite recently, research on job insecurity has been focused on

individuals worrying about losing their job. By acknowledging that these

individuals are embedded in a social context, a larger, more complete picture

can be drawn. The idea that job insecurity can be investigated from different

perspectives is therefore essential in this thesis. Firstly, it can be an

individual perception, as when a person worries about the continuity of his

or her job. Secondly, the same individuals can also perceive that their

coworkers worry about losing their jobs; thus, individuals can perceive a

climate of job insecurity at the workplace. A third perspective is that job

insecurity can be a shared perception − a pattern of similar emotions and

cognitions emerging among the group members. By including all three

perspectives in the study of job insecurity perceptions, a more

comprehensive understanding of job insecurity can be achieved.

The general aim of this thesis is to contribute to an increased understanding

of job insecurity by investigating the nature of the job insecurity climate

construct and how it relates to outcomes and to individual job insecurity. An

5

overview of the constructs and relationships investigated in the thesis is

presented in Figure 1. The figure shows that job insecurity can exist both as

an individual perception concerning one’s own job and as a climate, and that

these perceptions can be studied both at the individual level and as shared

perceptions at the group level. The associations with outcomes are also

indicated.

Figure 1. Overview of the constructs and relationships investigated in the thesis.

Three empirical studies were conducted in order to investigate four specific

aims:

The first aim was to test whether job insecurity climate and job insecurity are

two distinct constructs. This is illustrated by the separate boxes for

individual job insecurity and job insecurity climate in Figure 1. As a first

step in testing the dimensionality of the two constructs, Study I describes the

development and evaluation of a measure of job insecurity climate. The

factor structure of the two constructs is tested in Study I and Study III.

The second aim was to investigate possible outcomes of a job insecurity

climate and, more specifically, whether job insecurity climate can have

incremental validity compared to individual job insecurity in explaining

outcomes. This was tested in studies I and II and is illustrated in Figure 1 by

the arrows from individual job insecurity and job insecurity climate to work-

and health-related outcomes.

6

The third aim was to explore how the different approaches to measuring the

job insecurity climate relate to potential outcomes. This aim was tested

empirically in Study II, where individual job insecurity and job insecurity

climate at the individual level were aggregated to the workgroup level and

tested in relation to outcomes. In Figure 1, this is illustrated by the

individual- and group-level boxes for the two job insecurity constructs.

The fourth aim was to address how perceptions regarding job insecurity

climate and individual job insecurity relate to each other over time, as

illustrated by the bidirectional arrows between individual job insecurity and

job insecurity climate in Figure 1. The temporal relationship between the

two constructs was tested in Study III.

7

Perceptions at work

In this thesis, job insecurity is conceptualized as a subjective phenomenon.

These subjective perceptions may not necessarily be predicated on specific

objective events or potential events. Job insecurity perceptions, for example,

can occur without there being an actual threat of layoffs in the near future

(De Witte, 2005). This differentiation between objective threats and

subjective perceptions of threat is a key assumption in philosophical realism:

there is an objective reality which exists independent of the mind (Geach &

Black, 1952; Shapira, Liberman, Trope, & Rim, 2012). However, because

people experience objects and facts indirectly − through their senses − they

react and relate to mental representations of objects rather than the objects or

events as such (James & Sells, 1981; Shapira et al., 2012). In the context of

the job, people relate to a mental representation of their job or of the

situation they are in, instead of the job or the situation as such. Since these

mental representations are the result of an individual, subjective

interpretation, the objective conditions of a work situation can be interpreted

in many different ways (Perrewé & Zellars, 1999). Since this philosophical

stance is central in the present thesis, perceptions become a key concept. In

this thesis, different types of perceptions are considered, including (at the

individual level) individuals’ perceptions of their own situation and

individuals’ perceptions of how others perceive something, both of which

can be aggregated to the group level to form shared perceptions

(organizational climate and organizational collective climate, respectively).

The relations and differences between these types of perceptions are

delineated in the following, starting with perceptions at the individual level.

Individual perceptions

The process of perception involves a cognitive evaluation of environmental

stimuli, including visual and auditory cues (see, e.g., Banks & Krajicek,

1991). Applied to the work context, the study of work environment

perceptions are thus based on the principles that “(a) individuals respond to

environments in terms of how they perceive them and (b) the most important

component of perception is the meaning or meanings imputed to the

environment by the individual” (L. A. James & James, 1989, p. 739). In

essence, this implies that what a situation means to a person affects his or her

8

emotional state, cognition, and behavior (James & Sells, 1981; Osgood,

Suci, & Tannenbaum, 1967). From the perspective of interactionism, the

meaning of something is considered to be the result of a process where

characteristics of the person (e.g., gender, personality) and his or her

environment (e.g., support, leadership, resources) interact (James & Sells,

1981; Katz & Kahn, 1978; Magnusson, 1981; Mead, 1934). Although other

views have held that either individual factors or situational factors determine

what is perceived, the interactionist perspective is one of the predominant

theoretical frameworks in the social sciences today (Kristof-Brown, 2006;

Magnusson, 2000).

Psychological climate

In connection with the changes taking place in working life, especially as

manual labor gradually gave way to non-manual work, the psychological

risk factors for illness began receiving increased attention – and the term

‘psychosocial work environment’ was introduced (Karasek, 1979; Stansfeld

& Candy, 2006). Theories on interactionism have inspired a number of more

specific models for explaining human perception and functioning in

organizations. In its most basic form, the role of individual perceptions of

the work environment is described in the psychological climate model

(James & Jones, 1974). The psychological climate model is a theoretical

model which describes how individuals perceive psychosocial conditions,

especially with regard to work. This model defines the psychological climate

as “the individual’s cognitive representations of relatively proximal

situational events, expressed in terms that reflect the psychological meaning

and significance of the situation to the individual” (James & Sells, 1981 p.

275). The word psychological in psychological climate refers to the

cognitive mechanism involved in such perceptions.

When applied to work situations, the general psychological climate

comprises an individual’s perception of his or her work environment as

either beneficial or detrimental to wellbeing at work (L. A. James & James,

1989; Osgood et al., 1967). Psychological climate can be conceptualized as a

“general factor,” but it can also concern more specific aspects of the

psychosocial work environment, such as those relating to the psychological

climate variables of social support, role conflicts, and job insecurity (cf. L.

R. James et al., 2008). The concept of climate dimensions was introduced by

Schneider (1975) in a review of climate research, which was later referred to

as “facet-specific climates” by Rousseau (1988). Schneider’s argument was

that if one chose a more narrow focus for the climate (e.g., service quality),

the organizational events, practices, and procedures relevant for improving it

would be more transparent (D'Amato & Zijlstra, 2008; Schneider, Ehrhart, &

Macey, 2011). Among the specific climate dimensions that have been

studied, safety climate has received the most attention. In a paper reviewing

9

the last thirty years of safety climate research, Zohar (2010) concludes that

safety climate has been established as a robust predictor for safety outcomes

across industries and countries.

The majority of research on job insecurity is based on job insecurity as a

psychological climate, that is, the individual’s perception of insecurity

regarding his or her own job. However, since individuals are part of a larger

social context at work, they also perceive how others experience insecurity

about their jobs. This type of perception is called psychological collective

climate perception and will be described more in detail in the following.

Psychological collective climate

Humans are social beings. In fact, relatedness, or social connection, is

considered to be a basic human need (Alderfer, 1969; Maslow, 1943). As a

result of this need, people are primed to pay attention to others’ behaviors

and to make inferences about their cognitions, emotions, and motives (cf.

Davis, 2005; Happé, 2003). This kind of perspective-taking − thinking about

others’ thinking − is broadly referred to as theory of mind (Malle & Hodges,

2007). In more specific terms it has been termed mind perception, which can

be defined as “the everyday inferential act of a perceiver ascribing mental

states such as intentions, beliefs, desires, and feelings to others” (Ames &

Mason, 2012, p. 115). Mind perception has also been referred to as the

problem of other minds (Malle & Hodges, 2007). It is referred to as a

problem because people cannot actually be sure what goes on in other

people’s minds. However, people still engage in this activity on a daily basis,

making inferences about others’ attitudes and intentions from their behavior.

Picture, for instance, an employee who was just assigned a project by his or

her manager. Chances are that the employee is making inferences about the

manager’s thoughts and motives related to this decision. Maybe the

employee thinks that he or she was assigned the project because the manager

wants to reward them – or perhaps the employee believes that the manager

just thought that the project was a good match for his or her competency.

People engage in this theorizing about others’ minds, of course, because it

makes it easier to understand other people. Others’ interpretations and

opinions of some event can be an important source of information.

Understanding what is happening at a workplace is thus not solely an

individual process, but a process where individual perceptions are compared

or validated in relation to relevant others’ perceived understanding of the

situation (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978). Applied to climate theory, the result of

this process is the individual employee’s perception of the psychological

collective climate (Chan, 1998).

In summary, a differentiation can be made between what the work situation

means to a person individually (psychological climate) and a person’s

10

perception of a social climate at work (psychological collective climate).

Both psychological climate perceptions and psychological collective climate

perceptions can be aggregated to a group or organizational level to form an

organizational-level construct conceptualized as group or organization

members’ shared perceptions (Baltes, Zhdanova, & Parker, 2009).

Shared perceptions

People who, in some context, have ‘played as a team’ or sung in a choir will

know firsthand what it means to share an experience. It could be described

as a sense of togetherness – a confluence of thought, emotion, or perception

– which is a qualitatively different experience from doing the same thing

alone (cf. Koffka, 2013; Lewin, 1938). Perceptions can be shared in the

sense that group members experience something the same way. Individual

perceptions can form shared perceptions in the aggregate. These shared

perceptions are known as the organizational climate (as opposed to the

equivalent individual-level construct, the psychological climate), defined as

“the shared perceptions of and the meaning attached to the policies,

practices, and procedures employees experience and the behaviors they

observe getting rewarded and that are supported and expected” (Schneider,

Ehrhart, & Macey, 2013, p. 362). The emphasis is on the word ‘shared,’

implying that the focus is no longer on the individual, but on the workgroup,

team, or organization as a collective. Schneider and colleagues (2011, p.

378) state that “employee perceptions of their work and their work world

constitute, in the aggregate, the psychology of the organization and are as

real as any other attribute of the organization (e.g., structure, size)”.

The sharing of perceptions through sensemaking

An experience can become shared, through the process of social construction

or negotiation (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978). Shared perceptions can arise

within a social group through discussing the meaning of mutually

experienced events, a process known as sensemaking (Salancik & Pfeffer,

1978; Weick, 1995; Weick, Sutcliffe, & Obstfeld, 2005): The way an event

is interpreted or understood in an organizational context is often a result of

how group members communicate and socially construct the meaning of the

event. Through the everyday functioning of an organization, much has

already been interpreted and internalized by employees to create a picture of

the organization’s culture or “the way we do things around here” (Schein,

1992, p. 9). Sensemaking occurs when new information, or information that

is different from what is expected, is introduced, sometimes in conjunction

with events that deviate from the “normal” situation (Salancik & Pfeffer,

1978; Weick et al., 2005). It has been argued that people process negative

11

information more thoroughly than positive information, which would

suggest that employees invest more effort in sensemaking around events that

might have negative consequences for them (cf. Barsade, 2002; Baumeister,

Bratslavsky, Finkenauer, & Vohs, 2001). This would suggest that negative

information related to employment continuity may likely be the target of

more thorough sensemaking in an organization – a process that could lead to

the emergence of shared perceptions of job insecurity.

A typology of composition models

In the research literature on climates, numerous climate constructs can be

found, including general climate models, climate models focused on specific

facets and, perhaps even more importantly, models where the climate

constructs cover different conceptual levels. Formulated in terms of a

bottom-up process, phenomena at a lower level can be combined to form a

phenomenon at a higher level (Bliese, 2000). The relationships between

phenomena at lower levels and higher levels are classified either as

compilational or compositional (L. R. James et al., 2008). In composition

models, the phenomenon in question is considered to “share the same

content, meaning, and construct validity across levels” (Kozlowski & Klein,

2000, p. 29). In this thesis, job insecurity is conceptualized as a composition

model, in that job insecurity is considered to essentially be the same

construct at different levels. This is contrasted by compilation models, which

are based on the principle that the phenomenon being studied is qualitatively

different at different levels, but the pattern of lower-level perceptions still

“characterize the unit as a whole” (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000, p. 17). One

example of a compilation model is diversity research, where the degree of

diversity in a group (e.g., gender or age distribution) is expected to be related

to a number of group outcomes. In this case, the aggregate construct is a

measure of diversity, which is “theoretically distinct from its lower-level

counterpart” (Bliese, 2000, p. 367). In the present thesis, a composition

model view is used as a basis for clarifying how job insecurity at the social

level relates to constructs at the individual level.

Because the measurement level (the individual) is not the same as the level

of analysis (organization, department, group) when studying shared

perceptions, some type of data aggregation is required (Schneider et al.,

2011). This has made the question of perceptual agreement a core question

within climate research (Schneider et al., 2013). In order to aggregate data

from an individual level to a group or organizational level, it is required that

the researcher can reasonably claim that a climate exists in the social unit

which is being investigated. This makes agreement among group members a

prerequisite for the aggregation of perceptions to a group or organizational

level (Schneider et al., 2011). The level of agreement between group

members is usually determined statistically by estimating interrater

12

agreement and interrater reliability (Schneider et al., 2011). When group

members’ perceptions are very similar, the climate is described as strong,

and when perceptions are dissimilar or disparate, a weak climate exists (L.

R. James et al., 2008). The strength of a climate is generally expected to

either suppress or augment the relationship between a climate and expected

outcomes (Chan, 1998). For instance, the influence of a safety climate on

employee safety behavior will be stronger when the climate is strong, i.e., as

most employees are in agreement (Zohar, 2010; Zohar & Luria, 2005). In the

case of job insecurity climate, climate strength has been found to moderate

the relationships between job insecurity and outcomes such as job

satisfaction, organizational commitment, and organizational trust (Sora et al.,

2013).

The direct consensus model and the referent-shift consensus model are

composition models for explaining how a specific type of shared perception

corresponds with perceptions at the individual level. The direct consensus

model has been applied in previous studies where job insecurity climate is

conceptualized as shared perceptions of individual job insecurity (Sora et al.,

2009). In such studies, researchers ask respondents to report on how they

perceive their own work situation (or a specific aspect of their work

situation) and, if sufficient perceptual agreement is found within the

organization, the perceptions are aggregated to represent organization

members’ shared perceptions, as an organizational climate. Thus, the

perceptions respondents are asked about − and that are subsequently

aggregated − are their own perceptions of their work situation. For example,

if employees in an organization experience individual job insecurity, and

these experiences are similar for all employees, an organizational job

insecurity climate exists.

As previously mentioned, the direct consensus model is often used in climate

research today (Chan, 1998). But one weakness with this approach is that the

respondents have not actually reported on the climate (Dickson, Aditya, &

Chhokar, 2000). Therefore, it is in fact possible that they do not know that

they are in agreement. It is even possible that the respondents’ perceptions of

the collective climate differ from how they perceive their own situation. By

applying the referent-shift model to job insecurity, respondents are asked to

report on how they perceive the climate of job insecurity at their workplace

(as opposed to their own job insecurity). With the referent-shift model, what

is measured at the individual level is referred to as the psychological

collective climate, and the aggregated form is referred to as the

organizational collective climate.1 The consequence of this shift in referent is

1 The psychological and organizational collective climates should not be confused with the

“collective climate” construct which is based on cluster analysis. In the collective climate

approach, social units are created by way of statistically identifying clusters among people

13

that the scale captures the individual’s perception of the social climate – that

is, how the individual perceives the general climate or some more specific

facet such as safety or job insecurity. An overview of the different climate

models used in this thesis is presented in Figure 2.

Figure 2. An overview of the climate constructs investigated in this thesis.

The figure shows how two different types of perceptions (perception of

one’s own situation and perception of how others perceive the situation) can

be conceptualized both as individual- and group-level constructs. In the case

of job insecurity, applying the referent-shift model instead of the direct

consensus model would involve changing questionnaire items from

capturing an individual’s worry about his or her own job (e.g., “I worry

about being able to keep my job,” Hellgren, Sverke, & Isaksson, 1999) to

capturing the individual’s perception of job insecurity among his or her

colleagues (e.g., “Many people are worried about losing their jobs at my

workplace.”). In support of the referent-shift model, it has been argued that

the use of referent-shifted items is conceptually appropriate because they

refer to the level to which the individual perceptions will be aggregated

(LeBreton & Senter, 2008). Empirically, referent-shift items also tend to

yield improved agreement scores when aggregated (LeBreton & Senter

2008). In summary, by investigating how employees perceive how the

based on the degree of agreement in their ratings of a certain aspect (for an example, see

González‐Romá, Peiró, Lloret, & Zornoza, 1999); in contrast, organizational collective

climate is based on social units defined by the organization, such as teams, divisions, and

branch offices.

14

climate is for others, the referent-shift approach complements data on how

individuals perceive their own situation.

Summary

Perceptions can be seen as mental representations of an objective reality,

which are formed through an interaction of individual and situational factors.

At the individual level, a person can form a perception of his or her own

situation (psychological climate) and a perception of how others are

experiencing the situation (psychological collective climate). As explained

by Chan’s typology of composition models (1998), these individual

perceptions can also be shared within a social unit, either as an aggregate of

group members’ perceptions of their own situation (organizational climate),

or as an aggregate of group members’ perceptions of the climate in the group

(organizational collective climate).

15

Job insecurity

The previous chapter described perceptions as subjective by nature, resulting

from a cognitive process influenced by both individual and situational

factors. It was also described how individuals can differentiate between their

own situation and the climate surrounding them. Further, a central tenet in

the general climate literature is that these perceptions can be shared at a

group level (e.g., within an organization, department or workgroup). In this

chapter, the focus is on a specific type of perception: perceptions of job

insecurity. In previous research, job insecurity has mainly been

conceptualized as an individual phenomenon. However, by acknowledging

that perceptions of job insecurity occur in an inherently social context – the

workplace – it can be argued that job insecurity can be a social phenomenon

as well, conceptualized as a job insecurity climate. In the following, the

different dimensions and aspects of job insecurity will be described.

Individual job insecurity

Perceiving that one’s job is at risk can be a very stressful experience. In

essence, experiencing job insecurity is being in a state of limbo where one’s

job and all the benefits associated with it are at risk, but not lost for certain:

It is a period of agony of varying strength. Rumours about possible

decisions and actions are circulating. Reliable information is not

available. You have to decide whether you should try to look for

another job or not. Sometimes you have too little to do. You hover

between hope and despair. (Joelson & Wahlquist, 1987, p. 179)

With their definition of job insecurity as the “perceived powerlessness to

maintain desired continuity in a threatened job situation” (1984, p. 438),

Greenhalgh and Rosenblatt marked the start of job insecurity research in

psychology as we know it today. Since then, many other definitions have

been put forward. Job insecurity has for instance been defined as “an

employee’s perception of a potential threat to continuity in his or her current

job” (Heaney, Israel, & House, 1994, p. 1431), and as “an overall concern

about the future existence of the job’’ (Rosenblatt & Ruvio, 1996, p. 587).

The core aspects of these definitions can be summarized as the “subjectively

16

experienced anticipation of a fundamental and involuntary event related to

job loss” (Sverke, et al., 2002, p. 243). Thus, job insecurity consists of three

components; it is a) a subjective perception of b) an anticipated negative and

involuntary change regarding one’s job in the future, which c) involves an

affective component (worry).

As a subjective perception, job insecurity is based on the meaning that

individuals derive from their own job situations. Drawing on the

interactionist view on the formation of perceptions described in the previous

chapter, this interpretation of the situation is the result of a combination of

individual and situational factors. Some studies have conceptualized job

insecurity in terms of ‘objective’ threats to a job, and exclusively studied

employees working in organizations undergoing downsizing or major

organizational changes (Büssing, 1999; Klandermans & van Vuuren, 1999).

However, such objective threats are not stress inducing per se; rather, it is

the perception of what the threat/event entails − the meaning of the event −

which makes job insecurity such a stressful experience. As a consequence,

individuals experiencing the same objective situation may experience

different degrees of job insecurity (Sverke et al., 2002). In order to capture

this psychological aspect, job insecurity needs to be conceptualized as a

subjective perception.

Job insecurity is also about the “perceived likelihood of job loss” (Sverke et

al., 2002, p. 243). When individuals assess that involuntary job loss is a

possibility, they may or may not be worried about facing this uncertainty.

Perceiving that the job is at risk, is not necessarily stressful when, for

example, the individual has a high level of employability; i.e., he or she

believes it would be easy to get a new, equally good job, or that a change in

job situation would be welcome. However, in a situation where someone

really wants to or needs to keep their job, job insecurity may be a very

stressful experience. Thus, what is fundamental to this concept is that the

person wants to keep his or her job and that job loss would be a negative or

undesired development.

A third important characteristic of job insecurity is that it is an affective

experience; the individual perceiving job insecurity is worried that he or she

will no longer have a job. Job insecurity is anticipatory in nature; it is a

worry specifically about what will happen with the job in the future. Job

insecurity is therefore not experienced in conjunction with actual job loss,

since the uncertainty or anticipation of a negative outcome is an important

aspect of experiencing job insecurity (Hartley et al., 1990). Although job

loss in itself can of course be a traumatic incident that brings with it many

negative consequences and worries about the future (e.g., Jahoda, 1982), in

relation to job insecurity, it marks the end of it, as there is no longer any

doubt about the continuance of the job. In the definition from Greenhalgh

17

and Rosenblatt (1984) this uncertainty about the job carries with it a feeling

of powerlessness, in the sense that what happens with the job is out of one’s

own hands. Related to this, stress levels are typically reduced when a person

is let go after a long period of perceiving job insecurity (Hartley et al., 1990).

In summary, job insecurity can be seen as a subjective perception and an

affective reaction to a perceived threat to one’s employment.

Quantitative and qualitative aspects of job insecurity

Research on job insecurity has typically been focused on the fear of job loss.

Worrying about the future of one’s job might, however, extend to more

aspects than just the continuity of the current employment. In most cases,

having a job also means having work tasks that one appreciates, and,

hopefully, also possibilities for career development, personal development,

and learning in the future. Taking this perspective on job insecurity into

account, a differentiation has been made between quantitative (worrying

about job loss) and qualitative (worrying about negative changes regarding

the content of the job) aspects of job insecurity (Greenhalgh & Rosenblatt,

1984; Hellgren et al., 1999). While the vast majority of job insecurity

research has been focused on employees’ worries over losing their current

employment, it has also been recognized that employees can anticipate a

“loss of valued job features” (Greenhalgh & Rosenblatt, 1984, p. 441), such

as career opportunities, specific work tasks, and wage (De Witte et al., 2010;

Hellgren et al., 1999; Vander Elst et al., 2014). For example, at a workplace

that is currently undergoing major organizational change and restructuring,

one of the major questions for employees – in addition to the continuity of

the job − is whether the content of their work will be affected. In such a

situation, perceiving that the content of the job might change can be a

stressful experience in itself. The employees may be apprehensive that the

organizational change process could require re-training and learning new

skills or, perhaps, that the change could mean more routine work and fewer

possibilities for personal development and growth. A change in job content

could also carry with it a change in who one’s closest colleagues are or

affect which manager one answers to. The anticipation of such unwelcome

changes to the job, similar to worrying about job loss, can be a stressful

experience which strongly impacts one’s everyday work experience.

Both qualitative and quantitative aspects of job insecurity are addressed in

the present thesis, acknowledging that job insecurity perceptions can

comprise perceptions regarding both the continuity as well as the content of

a job. What is central to both aspects is that − at its core − job insecurity is

about worrying about what will happen with the job in the future.

18

Job insecurity climate

Job insecurity has typically been studied as an individual phenomenon,

reflecting individuals’ uncertainty and worry about the continuity of their

own jobs. However, since perceptions of job insecurity arise in the work

context − an inherently social context − job insecurity can also take on social

properties and exist as a climate (Allen, 2003; Sora et al., 2009). Picture a

workplace where everybody is on their toes. There could be major

organizational changes going on or just whispers that something is about to

happen. Some might try to position themselves to become indispensable,

while others might start looking for other career options. In any case, it

would most likely affect how people relate to each other and how they

behave and think.

The duality in that a phenomenon can have both individual and social

properties is not unique to job insecurity. For instance, fear is an individual

emotion, but it can also exist as a climate of fear, defined as “a generalized

experience of apprehension in the workplace” (Ashkanasy & Nicholson,

2003, p. 24). When it comes to job insecurity as a social phenomenon, it is

not yet clear how it should be conceptualized and measured. Previous studies

have investigated aggregated perceptions of individual job insecurity, thus

conceptualizing job insecurity climate as a facet of the organizational

climate (in line with a direct consensus model) (cf. Chan, 1998). This

aggregated construct reflects a similarity of individual perceptions. Since it

utilizes an aggregated analysis of individual measures of job insecurity

rather than measures of job insecurity climate as such, this approach does not

address whether the employees perceived that there was a climate of job

insecurity at their workplace. An alternative way of studying job insecurity

climate is to acknowledge that, separate from the individual job insecurity of

employees, individuals can perceive that there is a (psychological collective)

job insecurity climate at their workplace. This distinction between the two

job insecurity constructs is important because it does not exclude the

possibility that an individual's perception of his or her own situation may not

be identical to how he or she perceives the social climate at work.

A climate of job insecurity can arise when employees as a collective worry

about the continuity of their jobs. Colleagues interact with each other, and

when the situation at work is ambivalent or unclear, they may collectively

try to make sense of what is happening by discussing recent events with each

other, and by checking their own perceptions against those of others (cf.

Augoustinos, Walker, & Donaghue, 2014). A climate of job insecurity can,

for instance, be shaped through a process of sensemaking (cf. Weick, 1995).

In line with the direct consensus climate model, job insecurity climate has

previously been defined as “a set of shared perceptions of powerlessness to

maintain the continuity of threatened jobs in an organization” (Sora et al.,

19

2009, p. 130). However, a relevant question here is whether those who have

a certain individual perception of job insecurity know (or at least believe)

that others have the same perception. Does a similarity in perceptions mean

that they are shared in a conscious way among a social group or do the group

members just happen to perceive a similar level of insecurity about their own

jobs? This aspect of the climate – whether the sharing of perceptions is

expressed, or if people do not know that they share the same worries, is

central to understanding the nature of the job insecurity climate construct.

The experience of sharing a perception could, for example, be expressed as a

knowing look between friends or even between strangers or through

conversations at work, establishing how they as a group interpret a specific

event in the same way.

Measuring job insecurity climate

The conceptualization and measurement of the job insecurity constructs

requires some scrutiny in order to understand how the different types of job

insecurity are related to each other. Building on Chan’s (1998) typology of

composition models, as presented in the previous chapter on perceptions, an

overview of the corresponding types of job insecurity is presented in Figure

3:

Figure 3. An overview of the job insecurity constructs investigated in this thesis.

The figure shows how job insecurity at the individual level can be

conceptualized as individual job insecurity – worrying about the continuity

of one’s own job − and as a job insecurity climate – perceiving a climate of

job insecurity at work. Both types of job insecurity are individual

20

perceptions, but the focal point is different. These individual level

perceptions can then be aggregated to the group level, forming an

organizational job insecurity climate or an organizational collective job

insecurity climate. This former type is in line with the direct consensus

model, in which it is operationalized as shared perceptions of individual job

insecurity (Sora et al., 2009). In the present thesis, job insecurity climate is

conceptualized as a facet of the psychological collective climate − as an

individual’s perception of the job insecurity climate at work. Aggregating

individual perceptions of job insecurity climate to the group level, as an

organizational collective job insecurity climate, is in line with the referent-

shift model. Conceptually, the referent-shift model acknowledges that people

can have differing views on their own situation and the situation of the group

they are a part of. Applied to job insecurity research, this approach makes it

possible to study how working in a social environment characterized by job

insecurity is affecting employees. From a measurement perspective, this shift

from focusing on the individual’s own job to how the individual perceives

the climate of job insecurity requires a shift of referent in the scale items

(from “I” or “my” to “we” or “employees here”) (Baltes et al., 2009; Chan,

1998). Thus, the individual is asked to report on how he or she perceives the

climate of job insecurity at the workplace (“we”), instead of how the

individual perceives his or her own job insecurity. This is not to say that

measuring individual job insecurity is not relevant, but rather that the

measurement of individual job insecurity and job insecurity climate should

be treated as two separate aspects. In a study that compared individuals’

responses to questionnaire items using individual-level referents and those

using organizational-level referents, the results showed that the respondents

rated their own situation statistically different from how they rated the

situation of their organization (Baltes et al., 2009). This implies that in

addition to the conceptualization of job insecurity as a psychological

collective climate, the type of referent used in questionnaire items matters

when studying organizational climates.

The research literature has utilized several validated measures of individual

job insecurity, with items such as “I’m afraid that I’m going to lose my job”

(Hellgren et al., 1999) or “I feel insecure about the future of my job” (De

Witte, 2000; Vander Elst, De Witte, & De Cuyper, 2014). Previous studies

have, consequently, investigated job insecurity climate by measuring

individuals’ worry that their own job might be at risk, and then aggregating

these perceptions (given sufficient agreement in individual perceptions) (De

Cuyper et al., 2009; Sora et al., 2009; Sora et al., 2012), which is consistent

with the direct consensus model (cf. Chan, 1998). However, this approach

does not necessarily provide any information on how employees perceive the

climate at their workplace, just their level of insecurity about their own job

(cf. Baltes et al., 2009). By applying a referent-shift approach to studying job

insecurity climate and creating a measure for psychological collective job

21

insecurity climate (i.e., asking respondents to report on how they perceive

the job insecurity climate), it becomes possible to examine whether

employees differentiate between their own job insecurity and a climate of

job insecurity. This differentiation could contribute to a more nuanced

understanding of job insecurity in general, and enable better, more accurate

predictions of outcomes. When individual job insecurity is aggregated to the

group level, it can of course be determined statistically whether there is an

agreement across these ratings. But unless individuals are asked to report on

how they perceive the climate as such, the researcher cannot be sure if these

individuals actually perceive that there is a job insecurity climate – or if the

group members simply happen to have similar perceptions of their own

situation (i.e., the agreement is merely a statistical artifact). Aggregating

perceptions of job insecurity climate (to form an organizational collective

climate at the group level) would give a better measure of the experience of

job insecurity climate, as it is based on what respondents have actually

reported on how they perceive the climate, and (given a sufficient level of

agreement at the group level) that they perceive this climate in the same

way.

Consequences of job insecurity

The previous section gave an overview of the different aspects of job

insecurity and how they relate to each other. In order to truly understand the

nature of a construct – in this case job insecurity climate – one must also

know how it is related to other constructs, i.e., placing the construct in a

nomological net. Thus, an important line of investigation would be to

investigate whether job insecurity climate perceptions at the individual level

and group level are associated with work- and health-related outcomes. In

the following, transactional stress theory is presented as a theoretical

framework for understanding the process through which individual job

insecurity and job insecurity climate affect employees. Perceiving job

insecurity can be an unpleasant and stressful experience which leads to

strain. In this regard, job insecurity is seen as a work-related stressor (De

Witte, 2005). Transactional stress theory (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984)

explains stress in general as the result of a two-step process. The first step is

when an event (a stimulus) is perceived by the individual and assessed in

terms of whether it poses a threat to the individual or not (primary appraisal).

If the stimulus is perceived as a potential threat, the individual then assesses

whether the event transcends one’s abilities to cope with that threat or if he

or she can manage it (secondary appraisal). If the individual does not believe

that he or she can cope with the situation, it results in perceived stress

(Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). The experience of stress thus entails both an

appraisal of a situation and, subsequently, an assessment of the coping

resources available to the person for handling the situation. In this respect,

22

coping has been defined as “the process through which the individual

manages the demands of the person–environment relationship that are

appraised as stressful and the emotions they generate” (Lazarus & Folkman,

1984, p. 19). A differentiation is typically made between problem-focused

and emotion-focused coping (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Problem-focused

coping means taking action to somehow change the situation, so that the

problem is resolved. In the case of job insecurity, this could, for example,

involve increasing one’s competency or trying to gather relevant

information. Emotion-focused coping is a more indirect approach, aimed at

reducing emotional distress, for instance, by distancing oneself from the

problem (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984).

Individual job insecurity and outcomes

In line with transactional stress theory, the perception that one’s job is at risk

(individual job insecurity) is considered a work stressor (De Witte, 2005;

Hartley et al., 1990; Sverke et al., 2002). When individuals perceive that

there is threat to their job, they first assess how serious this threat is (primary

appraisal), and, subsequently, how this threat can be handled (secondary

appraisal) (cf. Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). If the overall assessment is that

the job is threatened and that the individual has little or no chance to escape

the threat, a stressful situation results. As a work stressor, individual job

insecurity is associated with a wide range of detrimental outcomes.

Two meta-analyses have tested the effects of quantitative job insecurity

reported in scientific studies. Sverke and colleagues (2002) categorized the

different types of outcomes according to the focus of the reaction (the

individual or the organization) and the type of reaction (immediate versus

long-term consequences). Based on 72 empirical studies, they documented

the negative effects of quantitative job insecurity on a wide range of

outcomes, including job attitudes (job satisfaction, job involvement),

organizational attitudes (organizational commitment, trust), health (both

physical and mental health), and work-related behavior (turnover intention).

The second meta-analysis, by Cheng and Chan (2008), based on 133 studies,

confirmed these findings and also reported a significant negative association

between job insecurity and performance. In addition to the outcome

variables included in the meta-analyses, research has also investigated the

associations between job insecurity and many other outcomes. For instance,

job insecurity has been found to negatively affect interpersonal relationships,

regarding spillover effects between spouses (Mauno & Kinnunen, 2002;

Westman, Etzion, & Danon, 2001) and the negative influence that parents’

job insecurity may have on their children’s work beliefs and work attitudes

(Barling, Dupre, & Hepburn, 1998). Job insecurity is also associated with

increased work−family conflict (for men) (Richter, Näswall, Lindfors, &

Sverke, 2015).

23

Since the second meta-analysis, research on job insecurity has continued to

flourish, with 296 scientific papers published on the topic between 2008 and

today.2 Studies investigating moderating, mediation, or moderated mediation

effects appear to be trending, giving an indication that the accumulated body

of research on this topic has moved from identifying consequences of job

insecurity and investigating direct associations to utilizing more advanced

models of the mechanisms through which job insecurity is related to

outcomes. There also appears to be an increased focus on investigating

longitudinal effects of job insecurity (e.g., Greenhalgh & Rosenblatt, 2010).

Whereas the majority of research on individual job insecurity has

investigated the effects of worrying about job loss as such (quantitative job

insecurity), job insecurity perceptions are not limited to the continuity of the

job. Research has also investigated other aspects of individual job insecurity.

For those who worry about losing valued job features (qualitative job

insecurity), having to face changing work tasks or poorer chances for

promotion is a salient concern for many employees. Although qualitative job

insecurity is a topic far less researched than quantitative job insecurity, there

are some notable findings nonetheless: qualitative job insecurity has been

found to be associated with less job satisfaction and personal

accomplishment, and with more emotional exhaustion, depersonalization,

and mental and physical health complaints (De Witte et al., 2010) – as well

as with higher levels of anxiety and depression (Boya et al., 2008). A few

longitudinal studies have also been published; for instance, Hellgren and

colleagues (1999) found weak but significant relations between qualitative

job insecurity and lower job satisfaction, poorer health, and stronger

turnover intentions. In a study by Vander Elst and colleagues (2014),

qualitative job insecurity was a predictor of more depressive symptoms and

lower affective organizational commitment. These associations were

mediated by perceived control, so that having a low sense of control

aggravated the negative effect of qualitative job insecurity on outcomes. In

summary, job insecurity can be seen as a work stressor that has immediate

and long-term negative effects for both individuals and for organizations.

The negative effects relate to work-related attitudes and behaviors as well as

wellbeing and health.

Job insecurity climate and outcomes

Even in its most general form, stress may not just be an individual

experience; it can also take on collective properties, highlighting the social

2 Based on a literature search on Web of Science for scientific papers published between 2008

and April 2015 with the search string “job insecurity OR job security OR job uncertainty OR

job security satisfaction” in the title field.

24

component of stress, where the thoughts and behaviors of people collectively

can create a climate of stress (e.g., Kozusznik, Rodríguez, & Peiró, 2015) or

collective stress (Länsisalmi, Peiró, & Kivimäki, 2000). Hence, stress in not

limited to an individual’s appraisal of his or her own situation and available

coping resources. As previously described, individual job insecurity has been

defined as a work stressor in the stressor–strain relationship and is

accordingly associated with negative outcomes. It is, however, less clear

how job insecurity climate is related to outcomes. As with individual job

insecurity, a job insecurity climate can be perceived as a threat (primary

appraisal), and if the individual does not believe that he or she has the

resources to cope with this threat (secondary appraisal), it can be a stressful

experience. Even though the focus is shifted from a person’s insecurity

regarding his or her own job to how the job insecurity climate is at the

workplace, the essence of the phenomenon is similar, as worry over the

future of the job will still be a negative experience. There are relatively few

previous studies on social stressors (e.g., negative group climate,

interpersonal conflicts), but they have given some indication that social

stress may lead to strain (Dormann & Zapf, 2002). For instance, social

stressors have been found to be related to higher levels of burnout (Zapf,

Seifert, Schmutte, Mertini, & Holz, 2001), poorer wellbeing (Dudenhöffer &

Dormann, 2013), and increased mental distress and reduced job satisfaction

(Spector & Jex, 1998). Applied to job insecurity, it could reasonably be

expected that experiencing a job insecurity climate is likely to have a

negative impact on work- and health-related outcomes similar to that of

individual job insecurity. Regardless of whether the individual is worried

about his or her own job, working in a social context where there is a climate

of job insecurity is presumably not an uplifting experience.

Based on the principle of composition models, in which the essence of a

phenomenon is considered to stay the same across different conceptual

levels, job insecurity climate at the individual and group levels can be seen

as different forms of the same phenomenon (cf. Kozlowski & Klein, 2000).

Considering job insecurity climate and individual job insecurity to be part of

the broader job insecurity concept, a logical continuation would be to expect

similar − but not identical − patterns of outcomes for job insecurity climate

and individual job insecurity. So far, a few studies have investigated possible

consequences of job insecurity climate, conceptualized as aggregated

perceptions of individual job insecurity (Sora et al., 2009; Sora et al., 2013).

It has, for instance, been shown that shared perceptions of individual job

insecurity are negatively related to work-related attitudes such as job

satisfaction and organizational commitment (Sora et al., 2009; Sora et al.,

2013) and to less organizational trust and work involvement (Sora et al.,

2013). Such negative associations were stronger in organizations when the

job insecurity climate was strong (employees’ perceived the job insecurity

climate in a similar way). By conceptualizing and measuring job insecurity

25

climate in line with a referent-shift model (i.e. studying perceptions of job

insecurity climate), an alternative approach to investigating outcomes of job

insecurity climate becomes possible. One line of investigation could be to

examine whether job insecurity climate has an impact on the same types of

outcomes as individual job insecurity and, furthermore, if the strength of any

such associations is similar for both constructs. This could, for instance,

involve testing the relationships between job insecurity climate and

outcomes such as job satisfaction, work demands, work–family conflict, and

mental and physical health complaints. A further question relates to the

aggregated form of individual job insecurity (organizational job insecurity

climate) and job insecurity climate (organizational collective job insecurity

climate) and whether these perceptions can induce stress as well when they

are shared at the group level. Investigating these questions could contribute

to a better understanding of the possible consequences of perceiving a job

insecurity climate and the strength and nature of these associations.

The relationship between individual job insecurity and job insecurity climate

When conceptualizing individual job insecurity and job insecurity climate as

two different job insecurity constructs, the question of how these constructs

are related arises. An important question in regard to this is whether having

the perception that others at work worry about their jobs affects one’s sense

of individual job insecurity. It is also possible that having one or more

individuals experiencing job insecurity in a group could influence the job

insecurity climate in the workgroup. A closer look at the relationship

between individual job insecurity and job insecurity climate reveals different

explanations for why a relationship could be expected in each direction.

Social or emotional contagion theory could explain how individual job

insecurity could have a causal effect on climate of job insecurity: “The study

of private emotional experiences reveals that an emotion is typically

followed by social sharing” (Rimé, 2007, p. 307). In the case of job

insecurity, this would indicate that a feeling of insecurity regarding the job is

something that individuals are likely to share with their colleagues. Emotions

or moods can spread between people, referred to as emotional contagion

(Barsade, 2002). It is generally assumed that negative affect is more

contagious than positive affect (cf. Baumeister et al., 2001). The

contagiousness of negative moods has, for instance, been studied in terms of

social burdening, finding that individuals share their worries with others

around them and thereby create a social burden for these colleagues (Yang,

Liu, Nauta, Caughlin, & Spector, 2014). The fact that job insecurity is

26

associated with negative emotions such as anxiety and fear would suggest

that it could easily spread among employees in a workgroup or organization.

The possibility that the causal relationship could be the reverse should also

be considered – that perceiving a climate of job insecurity could affect how

secure or unsecure one perceives the own job to be. Sensemaking theory

explains how meaning can be collectively constructed through conversation

between group members (Weick et al., 2005). This typically happens when

situational cues are ambiguous, which is often the case when job insecurity

perceptions arise. There could be rumors, or a lack of information, and so

employees may engage in sensemaking and thereby create a shared

understanding of what is happening. As individuals, people check and

validate their own perceptions against the joint understanding of the topic in

question. Perceiving that there is a shared perception that jobs are in

jeopardy could thus in turn create individual job insecurity – as individuals

check their own perceptions against, and fall closer in line with, those of

others (cf. Weick, 1995).

A third possibility is that individual job insecurity and job insecurity climate

affect each other reciprocally, in that individuals experiencing job insecurity

express their worry in the group and, simultaneously, job insecurity within

the group rubs off on individual members who were not necessarily worried

before. Taken together, the question of how individual job insecurity and job

insecurity climate relate to each other and the theoretical explanations

proposed here motivate an empirical investigation of the nature of this

relationship.

Concluding remarks

This overview of the job insecurity literature has shown that a differentiation

can be made between individual job insecurity and job insecurity climate,

with the former representing an individual phenomenon and the latter a

social phenomenon. Job insecurity climate has previously been studied as a

facet of the organizational climate, in line with the direct consensus model,

as aggregated perceptions of individual job insecurity. However, measures of

individual job insecurity do not necessarily reflect how the climate at work is

perceived. In fact, rather than reflecting the climate of job insecurity,

aggregating individuals’ perceptions of their own situation may only show

that individual job insecurity perceptions are coinciding. By asking

respondents to report on how they perceive the climate at their workplace, an

alternative approach to studying job insecurity climate is introduced. Job

insecurity climate could also be aggregated to the group level, as an

organizational collective job insecurity climate. Further, in order to

27

understand the nature of the job insecurity climate construct, it is necessary

to investigate how it relates to other constructs. Job insecurity is considered a

work stressor, and as such, it is associated with a number of negative

outcomes for organizations and individuals, both in the short and long term.

According to a composition model view of job insecurity, the relations

between job insecurity climate and its outcomes would be expected to be

similar in nature but dissimilar in predictive power compared to individual

job insecurity.

28

Summary of studies

Three empirical studies were conducted in order to achieve the four aims of

the present thesis. In this chapter, information about the data collection is

presented, including a description of the study design, and the time and

method of data collection. The analytical method applied in the studies is

also described. Study I investigated whether job insecurity climate and

individual job insecurity may be considered to be two different constructs,

and validated a measure of job insecurity climate conceptualized as a

psychological collective climate. Study II investigated the roles of

aggregated perceptions of individual job insecurity and job insecurity

climate as well as to what extent job insecurity climate is associated with

work- and health-related outcomes. Study III investigated the temporal

relationship between individual job insecurity and job insecurity climate

over time. Table 1 presents an outline of the research questions investigated

in the three studies, as well as the type of samples. In the following, the three

studies are described in more detail.

Study I – Measuring quantitative and qualitative aspects of the job insecurity climate: Scale validation

Background and aim

Job insecurity has been conceptualized as an individual perception, capturing

an individual’s worry about the continuity of his or her job (Hartley et al.,

1990) but it can also be approached as a social phenomenon – a job

insecurity climate. Job insecurity climate has previously been studied as

shared perceptions of individual job insecurity, in line with the direct

consensus model (Chan, 1998; De Cuyper et al., 2009; Sora et al., 2009;

Sora et al., 2013). However, this conceptualization does not take into

account that − in addition to individual job insecurity − a person can also

perceive that there is a climate of job insecurity as such at the workplace.

With the general aim of developing and evaluating a complementary

approach to measuring job insecurity climate, this study proposes the use of

a referent-shift model to measure job insecurity climate (i.e., asking

29

Tab

le 1

. G

ener

al d

escr

ipti

on

of

the

stu

die

s in

th

is t

hes

is

Stu

dy

III

Is t

her

e a

reci

pro

cal

rela

tio

nsh

ip

bet

wee

n i

nd

ivid

ual

jo

b

inse

curi

ty a

nd

jo

b i

nse

curi

ty

clim

ate

ov

er t

ime?

Co

nv

enie

nce

sam

ple

of

Fle

mis

h

emp

loy

ees

fro

m d

iffe

ren

t

org

aniz

atio

ns

and

sec

tors

Lo

ng

itu

din

al

Ap

ril

20

12

, N

ov

emb

er 2

012

,

and

Ap

ril

20

13

On

lin

e su

rvey

Co

nfi

rmat

ory

Fac

tor

An

aly

sis

Cro

ss-l

agg

ed a

nal

ysi

s

Stu

dy

II

To

wh

at e

xte

nt

are

job

in

secu

rity

clim

ate

per

cep

tio

ns

shar

ed w

ith

in a

wo

rkg

rou

p?

Ho

w i

s jo

b i

nse

curi

ty

clim

ate

rela

ted

to

ou

tco

mes

?

Em

plo

yee

s o

f a

Sw

edis

h p

riv

ate

sect

or

com

pan

y

Cro

ss-s

ecti

on

al

Mu

ltil

evel

May

to

Ju

ne

20

12

On

lin

e su

rvey

Mu

ltil

evel

mo

del

ing

Stu

dy

I

Are

in

div

idu

al j

ob

in

secu

rity

an

d j

ob

inse

curi

ty c

lim

ate

two

sep

arat

e

con

stru

cts?

Ho

w c

an j

ob

in

secu

rity

cli

mat

e b

e

con

cep

tual

ized

an

d m

easu

red

?

Sim

ple

str

atif

ied

ran

do

m s

amp

le o

f

wh

ite-

coll

ar w

ork

ers

in S

wed

en

Cro

ss-s

ecti

on

al

Oct

ob

er 2

01

1 t

o F

ebru

ary

20

12

Pap

er-a

nd

-pen

cil

qu

esti

on

nai

re

Co

nfi

rmat

ory

fac

tor

anal

ysi

s

Mu

ltiv

aria

te r

idg

e re

gre

ssio

n

Res

earc

h q

ues

tio

n

Sam

ple

Des

ign

Tim

e o

f d

ata

coll

ecti

on

Met

ho

d o

f d

ata

coll

ecti

on

An

aly

tica

l m

eth

od

30

respondents about their perceptions of the job insecurity climate). Two

specific aims were formulated. The first was to test whether individual job

insecurity and job insecurity climate are distinct constructs. The second was

to test the relative importance of individual job insecurity and job insecurity

climate in predicting work-related and health-related outcomes.

Methods

Data collection and sample

The data were collected as part of a larger panel study on stress, health, and

well-being among men and women working in the southern part of Sweden.

The data collection was commissioned by the project leaders, Professors

Lindfors and Lundgren (FORTE grant no. 2008-0103 to Ulf Lundberg,

Centre for Health Equity Studies, CHESS, Stockholm University), and

conducted by Statistics Sweden between the end of 2011 and early 2012

(Statistics Sweden, 2012). The data collection was performed using paper-

based questionnaires that were sent to the respondents’ home addresses. The

inclusion criteria comprised white-collar workers aged 32–58 years whose

work tasks require higher education. The population consisted of 850,428

individuals, whereof 2,501 were randomly selected and invited to take part

in the study. The questionnaire was filled out by 1,396 individuals, yielding

a response rate of 56%. After correcting for internal attrition, the effective

sample included 1,380 individuals. The sample consisted of 44% women, the

mean age was 45 years, and the respondents were working in the areas of

engineering, natural sciences, education, healthcare, or administration.

Measures

The measures used in Study I are presented in Table 2. All of the measures

had been validated previously and found to have sound psychometric

properties. The individual job insecurity measure of Hellgren, Sverke, and

Isaksson (1999) was used as a basis for developing a new scale for

measuring job insecurity climate. A previous study on individual and

organizational referents in questionnaire items also guided the item

construction (Baltes et al., 2009). An item pool with 18 items reflecting both

quantitative and qualitative job insecurity climate was developed, and the

wording and clarity of language was assessed using think-aloud protocols

from a snowball sample of employees (N=9) who were currently working in

organizations undergoing organizational changes. Experts on job insecurity

were also consulted. From the initial item pool, eight items were selected,

with four items measuring quantitative and qualitative job insecurity,

respectively.

31

Tab

le 2

. O

ver

vie

w o

f m

easu

res

for

Stu

dy

I

Ex

am

ple

ite

m

“I’m

afr

aid

th

at I

’m g

oin

g t

o l

ose

my

jo

b.”

“I w

orr

y a

bou

t g

etti

ng

les

s

stim

ula

tin

g w

ork

tas

ks

in t

he

futu

re.”

“At

my

wo

rkp

lace

th

ere

is a

gen

eral

feel

ing

of

anx

iety

ov

er b

ein

g l

et

go

.”

“Th

ere

are

man

y w

ho

are

wo

rrie

d

abo

ut

wo

rk c

on

dit

ion

s b

eco

min

g

wo

rse.

”

“Ho

w m

enta

lly

dem

and

ing i

s y

ou

r

pai

d w

ork

?”

No

te.

“−”

= n

ot

app

lica

ble

(co

nt’

d)

Alp

ha

.95

.76

.94

.81

.81

Sca

le r

an

ge

1 (

stro

ng

ly

dis

agre

e) t

o 5

(str

on

gly

ag

ree)

1 (

stro

ng

ly

dis

agre

e) t

o 5

(str

on

gly

ag

ree)

1 (

stro

ng

ly

dis

agre

e) t

o 5

(str

on

gly

ag

ree)

1 (

stro

ng

ly

dis

agre

e) t

o 5

(str

on

gly

ag

ree)

1 (

no

t at

all

stre

ssfu

l) t

o 7

(ver

y s

tres

sfu

l)

No

. o

f

item

s

3

3

4

4 5

Ref

eren

ce

Hel

lgre

n e

t al

. (1

99

9)

Hel

lgre

n e

t al

. (1

99

9)

Cre

ated

fo

r th

e p

urp

ose

of

this

stu

dy

Cre

ated

fo

r th

e p

urp

ose

of

this

stu

dy

Mår

db

erg,

Lu

nd

ber

g,

and

Fra

nk

enh

ause

r (1

99

1);

Lu

nd

ber

g,

Mår

db

erg

, an

d

Fra

nk

enh

ause

r (1

99

4)

Va

ria

ble

Job

In

secu

rity

Qu

anti

tati

ve

job

inse

curi

ty

Qu

alit

ativ

e jo

b i

nse

curi

ty

Qu

anti

tati

ve

job

inse

curi

ty c

lim

ate

Qu

alit

ativ

e jo

b i

nse

curi

ty

clim

ate

Ou

tco

mes

Wo

rk d

eman

ds

32

Tab

le 2

, co

nt’

d

Ex

am

ple

ite

m

“Ho

w o

ften

do

es y

our

job o

r

care

er k

eep y

ou

fro

m s

pen

din

g

the

amo

un

t o

f ti

me

yo

u w

ou

ld

lik

e to

sp

end

wit

h y

our

fam

ily

?”

“Hav

e y

ou

bee

n t

rou

ble

d b

y

any

of

the

foll

ow

ing

sy

mp

tom

s

in t

he

last

mo

nth

?”

“Ho

w w

ou

ld y

ou

rat

e y

our

hea

lth

at

the

pre

sen

t ti

me?

”

−

−

−

−

−

Alp

ha

.83

−

− −

−

−

−

−

Sca

le r

an

ge

1 (

nev

er)

to 5

(al

l th

e ti

me)

1 (

rare

ly o

r n

ever

) to

5

(oft

en/a

ll t

he

tim

e)

1

(ex

cell

ent)

to

5 (

ver

y p

oo

r)

0 (

wo

man

), 1

(m

an)

In y

ears

0 (

no c

hil

dre

n l

ivin

g a

t

ho

me)

, 1

(ch

ild

ren

liv

ing

at h

om

e)

0 (

<3

5 w

ork

hrs

per

wee

k),

1 (

≥35

wo

rk h

rs p

er w

eek

)

0 (

hig

h s

cho

ol)

, 1

(un

iver

sity

)

No

. o

f

item

s

2

10

1 1

1

1

1

1

Ref

eren

ce

Fro

ne,

Ru

ssel

l, a

nd

Co

op

er

(19

92

)

Eri

kse

n e

t al

. (1

99

8);

van

Wij

k a

nd

Ko

lk (

19

97);

Tib

bli

n e

t al

. (1

990

);

Wal

ters

et

al.

(20

02

)

Idle

r an

d B

eny

amin

i

(19

97

)

−

−

−

−

−

Va

ria

ble

Wo

rk–

fam

ily

co

nfl

ict

Psy

cho

log

ical

dis

tres

s

Po

or

self

-rat

ed h

ealt

h

Co

ntr

ol

vari

ab

les

Gen

der

Ag

e

Ch

ild

ren

und

er t

he

age

of

18

liv

ing

at

ho

me

Fu

ll-t

ime

wo

rk

Hig

hes

t ed

uca

tio

n

com

ple

ted

33

Analysis

The dimensionality of the job insecurity constructs was tested by means of

confirmative factor analysis (CFA). The purpose of this analysis was to

compare models of different factor solutions and to identify which model

best fits the data. The following fit indices were used to assess the different

models: the Comparative Fit Index (CFI, where values >.95 represent good

fit), the Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR, where values

<.05 represent good fit), and the Root Mean Square Error Approximation

(RMSEA, where values <.05 represent good fit) (Byrne, 2013). The

comparison between models was based on the chi-square difference test and

differences in the CFI (using the criterion of .01 or more as an indication of

different models) (Cheung & Rensvold, 2002). The proposed 4-factor model

(2 factors representing quantitative and qualitative individual job insecurity

and 2 factors representing quantitative and a qualitative job insecurity

climate) was compared with a one-factor model (all four constructs as one

factor) as well as with two separate two-factor models (the first with all

qualitative items loading on one factor and all quantitative items loading on

another factor regardless of whether they measured job insecurity or job

insecurity climate, while the second had all individual items loading on one

factor and all climate items on another).

The relationships between the job insecurity constructs and the proposed

outcome variables were analyzed next by using multiple regression. Initial

analyses indicated that multicollinearity could be a problem in this data set,

and, therefore, ridge regression was used instead of multiple linear

regression. Compared to ordinary least squares regression, multivariate ridge

regression makes the estimates more stable by adding a coefficient to the

regression equation (Draper & Smith, 1998). Separate ridge regression

analyses were performed for each of the four outcome variables, that is,

demands, work−family conflict, psychological distress, and poor self-rated

health. The analysis was done in two steps: control variables and individual

job insecurity were included as predictors in Step 1, and job insecurity

climate was added in Step 2.

Main findings and conclusions

Testing the dimensionality of the constructs revealed that the proposed four-

factor model had the best fit to the data compared to the three other models.

This result implies that individual job insecurity and job insecurity climate

can be seen as two separate constructs, both with quantitative and qualitative

dimensions. Regarding the relationship between the job insecurity constructs

and possible outcomes, the results showed that both quantitative and

qualitative individual job insecurity were related to all outcomes. Qualitative

job insecurity climate was also related to all outcomes, whereas quantitative

34

job insecurity climate was only related to demands and work−family

conflict. Adding quantitative job insecurity climate to the analysis

significantly increased the total variance explained for demands but not for

the other outcomes. The job insecurity climate measure tested here

demonstrated sound psychometric properties and, taken together, the results

give preliminary support to the validity of the job insecurity measure. In

conclusion, Study I showed that individual job insecurity and job insecurity

climate can be considered to be two distinct constructs with quantitative and

qualitative dimensions.

Study II – The roles of shared perceptions of job insecurity and job insecurity climate for work- and health-related outcomes: A multilevel approach

Background and aim

The detrimental effects of individual job insecurity on work-related attitudes,

health, and productivity are well-documented (for meta-analyses, see Cheng

& Chan, 2008; Sverke et al., 2002). Similar results have been obtained in

studies on the relationships between aggregated perceptions of individual job

insecurity and these outcomes (Mauno, De Cuyper, Tolvanen, Kinnunen, &

Mäkikangas, 2013; Sora et al., 2009). These results indicate that job

insecurity is, in part, a social phenomenon. However, since these previous

studies only included aggregated perceptions of individual job insecurity and

did not assess how the respondents perceive the climate of job insecurity at

the workplace, it would be relevant to compare to what degree the different

types of perceptions are shared, and how the different constructs relate to

outcome variables (Mauno et al., 2013).

Study II was conducted in order to investigate how individual and shared

(i.e., aggregated) perceptions of individual job insecurity and job insecurity

climate are related to outcomes. The first specific aim of the study was to

examine to what extent the variances in job insecurity and job insecurity

climate perceptions are dependent on the individual or the workgroup, and to

what extent these perceptions are shared within the workgroup. The second

aim was to assess the associations between the variables of shared

perceptions of job insecurity climate and individual job insecurity for job

satisfaction, productivity, self-rated health, and burnout.

35

Tab

le 3

. O

ver

vie

w o

f m

easu

res

for

Stu

dy

II

Ex

am

ple

ite

m

“I’m

afr

aid

th

at I

’m g

oin

g t

o l

ose

my

jo

b.”

“At

my

wo

rkp

lace

th

ere

is a

gen

eral

fee

ling

of

anx

iety

ov

er

bei

ng

let

go

.”

“I a

m s

atis

fied

wit

h m

y j

ob.”

“Ho

w w

ou

ld y

ou

per

son

ally

eval

uat

e th

e qu

alit

y o

f y

our

wo

rk?”

“Ho

w w

ou

ld y

ou

rat

e y

our

hea

lth

at t

he

pre

sen

t ti

me?

”

No

te.

“−”

= n

ot

app

lica

ble

(

con

t’d

)

Alp

ha

.96

.91

.92

.82

−

Sca

le r

an

ge

1 (

stro

ng

ly d

isag

ree)

to 5

(st

rong

ly a

gre

e)

1 (

stro

ng

ly d

isag

ree)

to 5

(st

rong

ly a

gre

e)

1 (

stro

ng

ly d

isag

ree)

to 5

(st

rong

ly a

gre

e)

1

(fa

r b

elo

w

ex

pec

tati

on

s) t

o

5 (

far

exce

edin

g

exp

ecta

tio

ns)

1

(v

ery

po

or)

to

5 (

exce

llen

t)

No

. o

f

item

s 3

4 3

4

1

Ref

eren

ce

Hel

lgre

n e

t al

. (1

99

9)

Lås

tad

, B

ern

tso

n,

Näs

wal

l,

Lin

dfo

rs,

and

Sv

erk

e

(20

15

)

Hel

lgre

n,

Sjö

ber

g,

and

Sv

erk

e (1

99

7),

bas

ed o

n

Bra

yfi

eld

an

d R

oth

e (1

95

1)

Dev

elo

ped

fo

r th

e p

urp

ose

of

this

stu

dy

Idle

r an

d B

eny

amin

i

(19

97

)

Va

ria

ble

Job

in

secu

rity

Ind

ivid

ual

jo

b

inse

curi

ty

Job

in

secu

rity

clim

ate

Ou

tco

mes

Job

sat

isfa

ctio

n

Pro

du

ctiv

ity

Sel

f-ra

ted

hea

lth

36

Tab

le 3

, co

nt’

d

Ex

am

ple

ite

m

“I

fee

l em

oti

on

ally

dra

ined

fr

om

my

work

.”

Co

ntr

ol

vari

ab

les

−

−

−

Alp

ha

.67

−

−

−

Sca

le r

an

ge

1

(n

ever

) to

7 (

ever

y d

ay)

0 (

man

), 1

(w

om

an)

In y

ears

0

(h

igh

sch

oo

l),

1 (

un

iver

sity

)

No

. o

f

item

s

16

1

1

1

Ref

eren

ce

Sch

aufe

li,

Lei

ter,

Mas

lach

,

and

Jac

kso

n (

19

96

); S

chu

tte,

To

pp

inen

, K

alim

o,

and

Sch

aufe

li (

200

0)

−

−

−

Va

ria

ble

Bu

rno

ut

Gen

der

Ag

e

Hig

hes

t ed

uca

tio

n

com

ple

ted

37

Methods

Data collection and sample

The study was based on questionnaire data collected through web-based

questionnaires during the late spring of 2012. The population consisted of

the employees at the Swedish branch, of a private sector company, that had

approximately 600 employees at this time. Because the data collection was

carried out as part of a larger research project focusing on working

conditions in different office types, employees working either in an open

plan office or in flex offices were invited to participate in the study (N=209).

Among these, 150 employees filled out the questionnaire, producing a

response rate of 72%. Eleven of the respondents were excluded from the

sample because they had not responded to any of the study variables. A

subsequent missing data analysis showed that 6% of the values in the data

set were missing. In line with recommendations by Tabachnik and Fidell

(2014), missing values were imputed using the EM algorithm. In the last

step, the nested structure of the data was investigated. After removing 13

additional respondents because they were the only respondents in their

workgroup, the effective sample consisted of 126 respondents nested in 18

groups. The sample consisted of 39% women, the mean age was 48 years,

and 56% had a university degree. All respondents held a permanent contract.

Measures

An overview of the measures used in this study is presented in Table 3. With

the exception of the burnout scale, the measures demonstrated sound

psychometric properties, with Cronbach’s alphas >.70.

Analysis

Interrater (within-group) agreement (rWG(J)) (LeBreton & Senter, 2008) and

intraclass correlations (ICC) (Hox, 2002) were estimated for individual job

insecurity and job insecurity climate. Looking at the pattern for the groups,

the rWG(J) scores for job insecurity climate ranged from .10 to .98, and 78% of

the groups had an rWG(J) score larger than the criterion value of .60 (Wagner,

Rau, & Lindemann, 2010). This indicates that, on average, interrater

agreement in the groups was 60% for job insecurity climate. For individual

job insecurity, the rWG(J) scores ranged from .02 to 1, with 61% of the groups

above the .60 criterion value. The results regarding the ICC showed that

19% of the variance in job insecurity climate perceptions could be attributed

to group membership, hence supporting the multilevel approach. None of the

variance in individual job insecurity perceptions could be attributed to group

membership, but for exploratory purposes, this variable was also aggregated

and included in the analysis. The difference between individual job

insecurity and job insecurity climate perceptions with regard to agreement

38

implies that it matters whether respondents are asked to report on their own

job insecurity or if they are asked to judge the climate of job insecurity at

their workplace.

Multilevel analyses were then run in SPSS. Firstly, two variables were

created to represent job insecurity climate at two levels: person-level job

insecurity climate (centered on the group mean) and workgroup job

insecurity climate (individuals’ ratings of job insecurity climate aggregated

to the group level). Secondly, four sets of hierarchal linear regression

analyses were run, with job satisfaction, productivity, self-rated health, and

burnout as the dependent variables. The three job insecurity variables were

added to each set of regression analyses in three models: Model 1 included

person-level and workgroup job insecurity climate and control variables;

Model 2 included person-level individual job insecurity and control

variables; and Model 3 included all three job insecurity variables and

controls.

Main findings and conclusions

The results of the hierarchal linear regression analyses showed that higher

person-level job insecurity climate – perceiving more job insecurity climate

than others in one’s workgroup – was a predictor of poorer self-rated health

and higher burnout scores. The finding that individual job insecurity was not

related to any of the outcomes was unexpected, considering previous job

insecurity research. The results of the hierarchal linear regression analyses

imply that job insecurity climate is a work stressor which is negatively

related to health outcomes. The results further indicate that individual job

insecurity and job insecurity climate are conceptually different constructs,

since only perceptions of job insecurity climate were shared within

workgroups.

Study III – On the reciprocal relationship between individual job insecurity and job insecurity climate

Background and aim

Individual job insecurity and job insecurity climate could be argued to be

separate but related constructs. However, because the relationship between

individual job insecurity and job insecurity climate has not yet been

investigated, it is not clear, for example, whether experiencing individual job

insecurity leads to perceiving a climate of job insecurity or vice versa, if

coworkers’ worry about the continuity of their jobs influences individuals’

39

insecurity about their own job. In line with social cognitive theory − where

behavior, person factors, and environmental factors are considered to be

related to each other reciprocally − it could be argued that individual job

insecurity (perception of individual situation) and job insecurity climate

perceptions (perception of workgroup’s worry) influence each other

reciprocally (cf. Bandura, 1986).

The aim of Study III was to investigate the relationship between individual

job insecurity and job insecurity climate over time. It was hypothesized that

the relationship between individual job insecurity and job insecurity climate

is reciprocal.

Methods

Data collection and sample

In order to investigate how individual job insecurity and job insecurity

climate perceptions relate to each other over time, longitudinal data were

collected. The sample consisted of readers of a Flemish Human Resources

magazine, and data were collected through web-based questionnaires.

Participants could win one of five 20€ vouchers for a multimedia store by

participating. Respondents who were currently unemployed were not

allowed to fill out the questionnaire and sent directly to the voucher chance

page. The data collections took place at six-month intervals with

measurements in April 2012 (Time 1, T1), November 2012 (Time 2, T2),

and April 2013 (Time 3, T3). At the end of each questionnaire, the

respondents were asked to submit their email address if they were interested

in participating in a follow-up study. The participants’ answers at the three

points of data collection were matched using this email address. At Time 1,

2,223 respondents submitted their email addresses, and 871 completed it

again at Time 2 (longitudinal response rate of 39%, relative to T1). At Time

3, 503 respondents filled out the questionnaire a third time (longitudinal

response rate of 58%, relative to T2). A strict data cleaning procedure was

applied, deleting respondents who were self-employed, respondents under 18

years of age and older than 65 years, and, based on IP-addresses,

respondents who had participated multiple times. The effective sample

consisted of 419 employees who had participated in all three waves of the

data collection. The study sample and the Flemish working population were

quite similar in terms of type of employment contract (92.1% and 93.4,

respectively). The age distribution in the study sample (5% of workers were

< 24 years old, 64.7% between 25 and 49 years, 30.3% were older than 49

years) was also fairly similar to that of the Flemish working population (8%

of workers were between 15 and 24 years old, 66.8% between 25 and 49

years, 24.8% were older than 49 years) (Belgian Federal Government

Service of Economy, 2012). Women were overrepresented in the sample

40

(58.5% women in the sample, compared to 47.6% women in the population),

and private sector employees were underrepresented in the sample (59%) as

compared to the Flemish working population (75.9%).

Measures

The measures used in Study III are presented in Table 4. Descriptive

statistics as well as the reliability of the measures used in the study were

estimated using SPSS 21. The two study variables (individual job insecurity

and job insecurity climate) demonstrated sound psychometric properties,

with Cronbach’s alphas well above the cut-off of .70 (Nunnally, 1978).

Analysis

The data were analyzed in Mplus 6.12 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998-2012) in

three steps: first, confirmatory factor analyses were conducted in order to

test the hypothesized measurement models. For each time point, a two-factor

model with individual job insecurity and job insecurity climate as two

distinct factors was compared with an alternative one-factor model where all

items were specified to load on one factor. In line with recommendations

from Byrne (2013), model fit was based on the following fit indices: the

Comparative Fit Index (CFI, where values >.95 represent good fit), the Root

Mean Square Error Approximation (RMSEA, where values <.05 represent

good fit), and the Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR, where

values <.05 represent good fit). The two-factor model showed the best fit to

the data at all three time points, demonstrating an acceptable fit to the data

(T1: CFI = 0.99, RMSEA = 0.07, SRMR = 0.02; T2: CFI = 0.98, RMSEA =

0.08, SRMR = 0.02; T3: CFI = 0.98, RMSEA = 0.08, SRMR = 0.03).

In the second step, the best fitting measurement models were tested for

longitudinal factorial invariance (Brown, 2012). This was done in order to

determine if mean level changes in individual job insecurity and job

insecurity climate over time could be considered to be true changes in the

constructs, or if changes between the measurement points could be ascribed

to changes in the measurement models of the constructs. A stability model

was specified in which stability paths were added from T1 to T2 and from

T2 to T3, testing the covariance between corresponding latent variables over

time (e.g., individual job insecurity T1 → individual job insecurity T2). The

error terms were allowed to covary between the corresponding indicators of

each latent variable at T1, T2, and T3. The stability model was then

compared with a constrained model where the factor loadings of the items

measuring the same construct were constrained to be equal over time. A CFI

difference smaller than or equal to .01 between the stability model and the

constrained model would indicate metric invariance (Cheung & Rensvold,

2002). The model comparison showed that there was no CFI difference

between the stability model (CFI = .98, RMSEA = .05, SRMR = .08) and the

41

Tab

le 4

. O

ver

vie

w o

f m

easu

res

for

Stu

dy

III

Ex

am

ple

ite

m

“I f

eel

inse

cure

ab

ou

t th

e

futu

re o

f m

y j

ob

.”

“At

my

wo

rkp

lace

th

ere

is

a g

ener

al f

eeli

ng

of

anx

iety

ov

er b

ein

g l

et g

o.”

−

−

−

−

No

te.

“−”

= n

ot

app

lica

ble

Alp

ha

T1

.8

8

T2

.8

9

T3

.9

1

T1

.9

4

T2

.9

5

T3

.9

5

−

−

−

−

Sca

le r

an

ge

1 (

stro

ng

ly d

isag

ree)

to

5 (

stro

ng

ly a

gre

e)

1 (

stro

ng

ly d

isag

ree)

to

5 (

stro

ng

ly a

gre

e)

In y

ears

0 (

man

), 1

(w

om

an)

0 (

pri

vat

e),

1 (

pub

lic)

0 (

tem

pora

ry),

1

(per

man

ent)

No

. o

f

item

s

4

4 1

1

1

1

Ref

eren

ce

De

Wit

te (

20

00

); V

and

er

Els

t, D

e W

itte

, an

d D

e

Cu

yp

er (

20

14)

Lås

tad

et

al.

(20

15

)

−

−

−

−

Va

ria

ble

Job

in

secu

rity

Ind

ivid

ual

jo

b

inse

curi

ty

Job

in

secu

rity

clim

ate

Co

ntr

ol

vari

ab

les

Ag

e

Gen

der

Sec

tor

Co

ntr

act

42

constrained model (CFI = .98, RMSEA = .05, SRMR = .08), indicating that

the measurement of the constructs was invariant over time.

To explore the nature of the temporal relationships between individual job

insecurity and job insecurity climate, four models were compared using

structural equation modelling. Model 1 was the stability model, to which

lagged paths were added. For Model 2, paths from T1 job insecurity climate

to T2 individual job insecurity and from T2 job insecurity climate to T3

individual job insecurity were added. For Model 3, lagged paths from T1

individual job insecurity to T2 job insecurity climate and from T2 individual

job insecurity to T3 job insecurity climate were added to the stability model.

Lastly, a reciprocal model (Model 4) was estimated, in which cross-lagged

paths between the two constructs were added. Correlations between the two

constructs within each time point were also estimated.

Main findings and conclusions

The model fit indices for Model 2 were satisfactory (χ2 (219) = 420.71, p <

.001, RMSEA = .05, CFI = .98, and SRMR = .07), and adding structural

paths from job insecurity climate to individual job insecurity (Model 2) to

the stability model (Model 1) significantly improved the fit to the data (∆χ2

(2) = 6.77, p < 0.05). However, a significant structural path was only found

between job insecurity climate T1 and individual job insecurity T2 (β = .11,

p < .05), not between job insecurity climate T2 and individual job insecurity

T3 (β = .05, ns) in this model. When including the paths from individual job

insecurity to job insecurity climate in the reciprocal model (Model 4), this

path was no longer significant (β = .07, ns and β = .01, ns, respectively),

indicating that there was no causal effect of job insecurity climate on

individual job insecurity for this sample. Model 3 was estimated next by

adding lagged relationships from individual job insecurity to job insecurity

climate. The model fit indices for Model 3 were acceptable (χ2 (219) =

402.15, p < .001, RMSEA = .05, CFI = .98, and SRMR = .05), and

compared to Model 1, the fit to the data was significantly better in Model 3

(∆χ2 (2) = 25.33, p < .001). Further, significant paths were found from

individual job insecurity T1 to job insecurity climate T2 (β = .20, p < .001)

and from individual job insecurity T2 to job insecurity climate T3 (β = .17, p

< .01). These effects remained significant in the reciprocal model (Model 4)

(β = .17, p < .001, and β = .18, p < .01, respectively). Model fit indices

indicated that Model 4 also had an acceptable fit to the data (χ2 (217) =

400.06, p < .001, RMSEA = .05, CFI = .98, and SRMR = .04). Model 4

showed an increased fit to the data compared with Model 2 (job insecurity

climate → individual job insecurity, ∆χ2 (2) = 20.65, p < .001) but not when

compared with Model 3 (individual job insecurity job insecurity climate,

∆χ2 (2) = 2.10, ns), thus leading to the conclusion that there was an effect of

individual job insecurity on job insecurity climate over time, but no reverse

43

effect. The structural models were also run with control variables (age,

gender, sector, and type of contract). However, because including these

variables did not change the results, the structural models presented here

were run without covariates.

In sum, the results of Study III suggest that job insecurity perceptions

originate as a concern about one’s own job, which subsequently expand to

include perceptions of a job insecurity climate at work. This finding

contributes to a better understanding of the process by which job insecurity

emerges in organizations. The study also contributes to a more

comprehensive understanding of job insecurity both as an individual and a

climate construct.

44

Discussion

The aim of this thesis was to contribute to an increased understanding of job

insecurity by investigating the job insecurity climate construct and how it

relates to outcomes and to individual job insecurity. Four specific research

aims were formulated. The first aim was to test the dimensionality of the job

insecurity construct and whether job insecurity climate and job insecurity are

two distinct constructs. The second aim concerned the relationship between

job insecurity and outcomes and whether a job insecurity climate can have

incremental validity compared to individual job insecurity in explaining

outcomes. The third aim was to investigate how different approaches to

measuring the job insecurity climate related to their outcomes. The fourth

and final aim was to test how job insecurity climate and individual job

insecurity relate to each other over time. In the following, the main findings

of the three empirical studies are discussed as well as the methodological

considerations, practical implications, and implications for theory and future

research.

On the dimensionality of the job insecurity construct

When it came to testing whether individual job insecurity and job insecurity

climate are two distinct constructs, an important first step was the

construction of a scale for measuring job insecurity climate. The

dimensionality of the job insecurity climate construct was investigated in

Study I and Study III. In Study I (in a sample of white-collar workers in

Sweden) the factor structure of job insecurity climate was tested by means of

confirmatory factor analysis, and the results supported the hypothesis that

individual job insecurity and job insecurity climate are two distinct

constructs with quantitative and qualitative aspects. The findings were

similar for Study III (in a sample of people working in Flanders, Belgium):

the results of the confirmatory factor analyses showed that individual job

insecurity and job insecurity climate may be considered as two separate

constructs (it should be noted that only quantitative aspects of job insecurity

(worry of job loss) were investigated in Study III). The finding that

individual job insecurity and job insecurity climate can be seen as two

separate constructs confirms the expectation that people differentiate

between insecurity regarding their own job and the climate of job insecurity

45

that they perceive at the workplace. The dimensionality of the individual job

insecurity and job insecurity climate constructs also has implications for

studying job insecurity at the group level, as an awareness is needed with

regard to which type of perceptions to aggregate when studying job

insecurity at the group level. Overall, the results of this thesis support the use

of a referent-shift model when studying job insecurity climate, such as the

job insecurity climate measure developed in Study I.

Job insecurity climate and outcomes

Building on the result that individual job insecurity and job insecurity

climate are two distinct constructs, an important follow-up question is how

the two constructs relate to other constructs in the nomological net

(Cronbach & Meehl, 1955). The second aim of the present thesis, regarding

the relationships between job insecurity climate and outcomes and the

potential incremental validity of job insecurity climate, was investigated in

Study I and Study II (a study of employees in the Swedish branch office of a

private sector company). Regarding the associations with outcomes, the

results were generally in keeping with previous research and confirmed the

expectation that job insecurity climate would have a similar pattern of

outcomes as individual job insecurity. Specifically, the results of Study I

showed that the quantitative job insecurity climate was significantly related

to higher levels of work demands and work−family conflict. This finding

was in line with previous research on outcomes of individual job insecurity.

Having a psychosocial work environment characterized by job insecurity

thus affects perceived work demands – perhaps reflecting a perception that

that the pressure is on to be productive. This tension also affects life outside

work. Further, qualitative job insecurity climate significantly predicted

higher work demands, higher levels of work−family conflict, more

psychological distress, and poor self-rated health. This suggests that −

compared to quantitative job insecurity climate − qualitative job insecurity

climate was a more salient stressor for this sample. Job insecurity climate at

the individual level was related to poorer self-rated health and higher levels

of burnout in Study II. Taken together, these results are generally in keeping

with previous studies on the relationships between individual job insecurity

and work-related and health-related outcomes (Cheng & Chan, 2008; Sverke

et al., 2002; Vander Elst et al., 2014) as well as studies on the relationships

between organizational job insecurity climate and work-related outcomes

(Sora et al., 2009; Sora et al., 2013). The results indicate that job insecurity

climate may be considered a work stressor with incremental predictive

validity compared to individual job insecurity.

Having investigated the relationships between both individual job insecurity

and job insecurity climate and outcomes at the individual level, a relevant

46

extension of this research was to test these relationships when the job

insecurity constructs were aggregated to the group level. The third aim of

this thesis was therefore about how these different conceptualizations of job

insecurity relate to outcomes. This aim was addressed in Study II, where a

multilevel analysis of the association between individual job insecurity and

job insecurity climate, as individual- and group-level constructs, and of their

relations with work- and health-related outcomes was performed. Based on

previous research on the relationships between job insecurity climate (based

on a direct consensus model) and outcomes (Sora et al., 2009; Sora et al.,

2013), as well as on transactional stress theory (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984),

both individual job insecurity and job insecurity climate at the group level

were expected to be associated with poorer health and lower job satisfaction

and productivity. The results showed that only individual-level job insecurity

climate (perceiving higher levels of job insecurity climate than other group

members) was significantly related to self-rated health and burnout. The fact

that job insecurity climate – and not individual job insecurity – demonstrated

significant relationships with these outcomes was surprising, given the large

body of research pointing to the detrimental effects of individual job

insecurity (Cheng & Chan, 2008; Sverke et al., 2002). One reason for this

lack of associations could be the low sample size. Another possible

explanation could be related to the relatively low mean levels of job

insecurity and job insecurity climate in this sample. It could be relevant to

replicate the study in a sample of employees who perceive a strong sense of

individual and climate job insecurity.

The relationship between individual job insecurity and job insecurity climate

The fourth aim of the thesis, regarding the relationship between individual

job insecurity and job insecurity climate was investigated in Study III. A

reciprocal relationship between individual job insecurity and job insecurity

climate over time was hypothesized. The results showed that individual job

insecurity predicted job insecurity climate six months later, but a similar

effect of job insecurity climate on individual job insecurity was not found.

The former result suggests that individual job insecurity is contagious – that

job insecurity originates as an individual perception about the continuity of

one’s job and subsequently affects how individuals perceive the job

insecurity climate around them. When it comes to the stability of the two

constructs over time, the results showed that individual job insecurity was

more stable than the perceived job insecurity climate. In hindsight, this could

have been expected, since individual job insecurity is in part related to trait-

like characteristics such as neuroticism and negative affectivity. Job

insecurity climate, on the other hand, involves a work unit that might be

47

more sensitive to changes such as turnover and new group members as well

as changes in leadership. Consequently, the job insecurity climate in the

group might also fluctuate in line with such changes.

Study III only investigates job insecurity climate at the individual level. It

would be interesting to test if the results also apply to aggregated perceptions

of job insecurity climate. Further, research on job insecurity has identified

both situational and personal factors that contribute to perceptions of

individual job insecurity (for meta-analytic findings on the predictors of job

insecurity, see Keim et al., 2014). For instance, related to the job or work

situation, insufficient communication (Johnson, Bernhagen, Miller, & Allen,

1996; Schweiger & Denisi, 1991), a lack of possibilities for participation

(Vander Elst, Baillien, De Cuyper, & De Witte, 2010), and rumors

(Kinnunen, Mauno, Nätti, & Happonen, 2000) are associated with more job

insecurity. A similar investigation of job insecurity climate could be

interesting, looking at how social factors relate to job insecurity climate

perceptions. Drawing on sensemaking theory, the role of rumors in particular

would be interesting to investigate, because rumors could be seen as part of

the sensemaking process. Future research could benefit from investigating

such mechanisms.

Methodological considerations

As with all empirical research, the studies of this thesis present some

methodological issues that should be addressed. Concerns regarding the use

of self-reports, questions of causality, aggregation practices, and the

generalizability of the results may have implications for the conclusions that

can be draw from these studies.

On the use of self-reports

The three empirical studies included in this thesis are all based on self-

reports. The use of self-reports is an efficient and comparably inexpensive

method for data collection. It also allows the researcher to gain an insight

into the respondents’ subjective world in terms of their perceptions and

feelings (cf. Perrewé & Zellars, 1999). However, the validity of self-reports

has been criticized because there is a potential for common method bias

(Campbell & Fiske, 1959; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003;

Spector, 1994). In relation to this thesis, the presence of a common method

bias in the data could have implications on whether the relationships

indentified in the studies really exist (or that small relationships are inflated)

or if they might appear in the data as the result of a flawed method (for an

overview and discussion of this controversy, see Spector, 1994). However,

although self-reported data may be afflicted with such problems, the claim

48

that the method is inherently flawed is stronger than what the avaliable

evidence permits (Chan, 2009; Spector, 2006). Instead of dismissing all

studies based on self-reports as being afflicted with common method bias, it

has been suggested that each measured variable should be examined in order

to determine which factors might be likely sources of variance (Spector,

2006). Considering the potential problems associated with collecting data

through self-reports, one should consider which other methods of data

collection could have contributed to the quality of the data. Some researchers

have, for instance, used experimental designs to manipulate the experiencing

of job insecurity (e.g., Probst, Stewart, Gruys, & Tierney, 2007) or an

experimental setting combined with a field study (Probst et al., 2007) to

study job insecurity. However, the majority of studies on job insecurity are

based on self-reports, with the reason probably being that subjective

perceptions are difficult to study in an experimental setting while still

maintaining acceptable ecological validity.

Causality

Given the non-experimental design of the studies in the present thesis, the

issue of causality and the directionality of effects is of relevance (as it is with

all non-experimental studies, e.g., Tabachnick & Fidell, 2014). Bollen

(1989) proposed the following criteria for determining a causal relationship:

isolation (i.e., that no other variables exist or can influence the relation

between the variables in question), association (i.e., there has to be a

bivariate association between the two constructs), and the direction of

causation (i.e., “the cause must precede the effect” (p.61)). Regarding the

first criterion, the question of isolation, it cannot be conclusively ruled out

that a third variable could have affected the results reported in the three

empirical studies in this thesis (Zapf, Dormann, & Frese, 1996). However, as

this criteria is considered more of an ideal and is almost impossible to satisfy

in practice (Bollen, 1989), this is a limitation that this thesis shares with the

vast majority of research in this field. Regarding the second criterion, a

significant bivariate correlation was found between the constructs in all three

studies, supporting the criteria of association. When it comes to the third of

Bollen’s criteria, direction of causation, one way to address the issue is to

use a longitudinal study design. Studies I and II employed a cross-sectional

design and, because of this, conclusions about the directionality of effects

between job insecurity and outcome variables should be made cautiously. It

is in fact possible that the direction of effects could have been the reverse of

what is claimed here, i.e., that poor health could have led to job insecurity.

However, considering not only the strength of the theoretical frameworks

conceptualizing job insecurity as a work stressor and the pattern of results

that has emerged from the large number of studies to have investigated the

relationship between job insecurity and outcomes, but also the previous

results of longitudinal studies that have examined these relationships (e.g.,

49

Hellgren & Sverke, 2003; Siegrist, Peter, Junge, Cremer, & Seidel, 1990), a

reverse effect would seem unlikely. A longitudinal design was used in Study

III in this thesis, which included three waves of data collection. This design

gives an indication of directionality between constructs, at least to a stronger

degree than cross-sectional designs do (cf. Roe, 2013). However, the cross-

lagged panel design has been criticized, for instance, by Hamaker and

colleagues (2015), who argue that most psychological constructs have a trait-

like stability over time and that autoregressive parameters in cross-lagged

panel models cannot account for this.

Another possible limitation is related to the 6-month time lag between each

of the three data collections in Study III. It is not clear whether this is an

appropriate time frame for capturing changes in job insecurity perceptions. It

is difficult to say when stress consequences emerge regarding different types

of outcomes. It could be that some effects are instantaneous, while others

take time to evolve (e.g., de Lange, 2005; Taris & Kompier, 2014; Zapf et

al., 1996). In their meta-analysis from 2002, Sverke and colleagues

differentiate between immediate (work-related attitudes) and long-term

(health, work-related behavior) consequences of job insecurity. However, no

agreement appears to exist regarding how many days, weeks, or months are

to elapse in order to constitute ‘long-term’ in this regard. With a longitudinal

design it is also possible that there could be seasonal effects at play, which

could affect the results as well.

While significant relationships between job insecurity climate and outcomes

were found for most of the outcome variables tested, some non-significant

results were also found. There could be several reasons for these findings.

First of all, none-results are not unheard of in job insecurity research.

Despite the tendency for a publication bias against null-findings (see, e.g.,

Landis, James, Lance, Pierce, & Rogelberg, 2014), there have been studies

published which report non-significant results between job insecurity and

different outcomes (e.g., Näswall, Lindfors, & Sverke, 2012). It is not

certain why there is a lack of association between job insecurity and

outcomes in certain cases, but it could be speculated that a certain level of

job insecurity might be required for job insecurity to affect some outcomes.

Considering that the mean levels and the variance of job insecurity and job

insecurity climate in the samples investigated in this thesis are fairly low,

one might suspect that job insecurity does not become a salient stressor until

it reaches a certain level.

Generalizability of results

Just as issues related to causality could have influenced the results in this

thesis, issues regarding the generalizability of the results need to be

addressed as well. The data used in the three studies were collected from

50

Sweden (Studies I and II) and from the Flemish part of Belgium (Study III),

and included employees from a wide range of professions, both in the private

and the public sectors. Thus, the results of the studies in this thesis are based

on many different work situations. The fact that samples from two national

contexts were included in the thesis contributes in a positive way to the

external validity of the findings. A possible limitation of the study samples

concerns their lack of blue-collar workers. Job insecurity is not a

phenomenon that is restricted to white-collar workers only, and this could

limit the generalizability of the results to blue-collar workers as a group.

Further research is needed in order to determine if the results of this thesis

also apply to this group of employees and people working within other

national contexts and social security systems.

Theoretical implications

The previous paragraphs discussed the main findings and some possible

methodological limitations to the validity of these findings. Despite these

issues, the combined results of this thesis have some implications for theory

and future research on individual job insecurity and job insecurity climate.

Aggregation practices

Studying phenomena at the group level usually requires some kind of

aggregation of individual data (e.g., Kozlowski & Klein, 2000). In

accordance with general practice in climate research, sufficient agreement

across raters is a criterion for the validity of the higher order construct. If

agreement indices do not indicate that the perceptions are shared, one would

conclude that the specific type of climate being investigated does not

currently exist in the organization. However, it is possible that the group

members might not experience the climate in their workgroup in the exact

same way. Further, it is also possible that even if there is no agreement

across the whole organization or division, climates of job insecurity may still

exist in (more or less formally defined) subgroups. Although a perception

may not be shared among the entire organization, a segment of the

employees could still be found to experience a climate of job insecurity.

Within an organization job insecurity climate could be shared within a group

of people with the same profession (e.g., technicians, customer service), in a

specific geographical location (e.g., the Swedish branch of a multinational

corporation), or in a specific demographic group (such as older workers or

women). This has been corroborated in a qualitative study on job insecurity

in higher education institutions (Allen, 2003). In this study, job insecurity

was found to be a dimension of the organizational climate that could either

be a shared perception at the organizational level or be rooted in

organizational subcultures. This implies that even if the agreement indices

51

do not indicate that there is a job insecurity climate at the organizational

level, it is still possible that it could exist in certain parts of the organization.

For an outsider, identifying these subgroups or subcultures can be an almost

impossible task. Most employees probably also see themselves as belonging

to several such groups, making the picture even more complex. For those

experiencing a climate of insecurity, it could be argued that it is probably a

stressful experience, regardless of whether perceptions are shared within the

whole organization or within smaller (formal or informal) subunits. This

could even be relevant if an individual is not worried about his or her own

job but perceives that there is a climate of job insecurity in the workgroup.

To work in a psychosocial environment where job insecurity is a recurring

topic of conversation and where there is a generally anxious atmosphere

could be a stressful experience in itself.

Which type of data to aggregate has been an important question in this

thesis. In connection with this, a potential limitation of the present thesis

concerns the wording of the items on the job insecurity climate scale that

were clustered in Study II. In the scale items, the respondents were asked to

report on how they perceived the job insecurity climate at their workplace.

When choosing a grouping variable for the analyses, having the same closest

manager appeared to be the best option. However, the respondents may not

have all had the same scope of social unit in mind when assessing the

climate, which could produce potential mismatches between the item

referent and the social unit being clustered. This could have led to false

conclusions about agreement within groups (either false-positive or false-

negative conclusions). However, one could argue that because people belong

to many different social units (of either formal or informal nature), it would

be impossible to take this into account in a study like this. One solution

could of course be to study collective climates of job insecurity by

determining the group structure based on how individuals’ perceptions are

clustered (see, e.g., González‐Romá et al., 1999), although it would be

difficult to determine if the clusters are perceived as meaningful by

organizational members. By asking respondents to report on how they

perceive the climate at their workplace, it would be expected that they would

base it on the segment of their workplace which is most salient to them.

What does it mean to share perceptions?

The previous discussion on aggregation practices touches on a more general

discussion about what it means to share perceptions. Is it necessary to share

climate perceptions for them to matter? Where previous research on job

insecurity climate has studied individuals’ aggregated perceptions of their

own job insecurity, a principal point of this thesis is that there is a difference

between perceiving one’s own job insecurity and the perception that there is

a climate of job insecurity at work. This differentiation at the individual level

52

also applies when the same perceptions are aggregated to the group level,

forming either an organizational job insecurity climate or an organizational

collective job insecurity climate. Within climate research, a much debated

issue has been whether climate should be seen as an attribute of the

individual or as an attribute of the organization. This is referred to as the

“level-of-analysis problem” or “unit-of-theory problem” in the literature

(Schneider et al., 2011; Schneider et al., 2013). In connection with this, some

have criticized the psychological climate construct, arguing that climate

should be studied at the group level as an attribute of the organization, and

not as a psychological climate (e.g., Guion, 1973). According to the referent-

shift model, however, the psychological collective climate is not just an

attitudinal measure but also a measure of how the individual perceives their

social environment at work (Chan, 1998). Moreover, as long as the climate

constructs under study are properly defined and it is clear what type of

climate is being studied, there should be no reason to dismiss climate

constructs at the individual level. Applied to job insecurity, perceptions of

individual job insecurity can, of course, coincide and thereby be shared in a

statistical sense, but the question is whether this approach could really

capture employees’ awareness of a shared climate of job insecurity, or if it

merely indicates that there are many individuals experiencing job insecurity

in the organization that is being studied. As shown in studies I and II, what

matters to individuals is whether they perceive that there is a climate of job

insecurity at their workplace. Thus, the perception of a climate (as captured

by the referent-shift model) should be the basis for studying how employees

are affected by working in an organization where there may be a climate of

job insecurity. Another question related to the sharing of perceptions is

whether the persons assessing the climate see themselves as part of the job

insecurity climate (“we”) or of they observe it from a (psychological)

distance (“they”). In this thesis, the referent “at my workplace” was used in

the job insecurity climate questionnaire items. This questionnaire referent

does not define the personal inclusivity of the respondent, so as to, in the

questionnaire items, differentiate between whether the employee is being

asked whether he/she perceives that the others (“they as a group”) at the

workplace worry or if he/she perceives that the others and myself (“we as a

group”) worry about the future of our jobs. A relevant question for future

research could therefore be to investigate whether the experience of being

included in a climate of job insecurity (or observing it from the outside)

might have consequences for work- and health-related outcomes.

Practical implications

The trend of work life becoming more flexible and employees having to deal

with the more insecure jobs that can result from it has been a central tenet in

this thesis (Heery & Salmon, 2002). One structural factor contributing to this

53

development is the periphery–core principle, which applies to most

organizations today to some extent (Atkinson, 1984; Nesheim, 2004). The

basic premise of this model is that in order for the organization to meet the

external demands for flexibility, it is necessary to combine the pool of core

workers with permanent contracts with a pool of more peripheral workers

that could be either numerically or functionally flexible. Job insecurity for

employees is inherent to this model, even if it may not be explicitly

formulated as a management strategy. This was illustrated by a study

reporting that the percentage of temporary workers in an organization was

associated with a climate of job insecurity among permanent employees (De

Cuyper et al., 2009). Thus, organizations’ use of more peripheral workers

creates insecurity – and not just for the peripheral workers; an insecure job

climate affects everyone. An increased awareness of this consequence is

needed in organizations. Some may say that flexibility is a prerequisite for

organizational survival today and claim that job insecurity is the new

normal, arguing that job insecurity is inherent in work life today and,

thereby, something that people need to accept and learn to deal with (cf.

Cooper, 1999). While it is impossible to make every aspect of life secure or

predictable or even controllable, it is problematic when insecurity in work

life is (more or less consciously) used for strategic purposes. An increased

awareness of job insecurity as a social and individual stressor is needed

among practitioners. Considering the negative outcomes associated with

perceiving a climate of job insecurity, attempting to change the job

insecurity climate could be a valuable strategy if a strong climate of job

insecurity is identified in an organization. For example, by including

measures of both individual job insecurity and job insecurity climate in

psychosocial work environment questionnaires, the social climate of the

organization can be monitored, giving organizations the opportunity to

intervene before job insecurity has the chance to become a major

organizational problem.

Conclusions

With ever increasing demands for flexibility, there is a tendency in work life

today for people to be insecure about the future of their jobs and, indirectly,

their future in general. This insecurity can be the source of many negative

consequences, such as lower job satisfaction and organizational

commitment, and poorer physical and mental health. What this thesis has

shown it that job insecurity is not just a private concern; employees also

perceive and react to the job insecurity climate at work − their colleagues’

worries regarding the future of their jobs.

54

While the majority of job insecurity research has focused on job insecurity

as an individual phenomenon, more recent studies have highlighted that job

insecurity can be a social phenomenon as well, a job insecurity climate.

Through an overview of the job insecurity literature and three empirical

studies, the present thesis introduced a referent-shift approach to job

insecurity climate research and demonstrated the importance of studying

individuals’ perceptions of the job insecurity climate at work in addition to

their own job insecurity. This thesis has also provided new insight into job

insecurity as a work stressor by showing that job insecurity climate

perceptions are related to work- and health-related outcomes. The temporal

relationship between individual job insecurity and job insecurity climate was

also investigated, and the results suggest that individual job insecurity

precedes job insecurity climate perceptions.

By establishing that job insecurity is an individual and a social phenomenon,

the focus of job insecurity research is expanded. Considering the detrimental

nature of the consequences associated with job insecurity, it is in the interest

of organizations to make efforts to prevent a climate of job insecurity – and

ultimately even individual job insecurity – from arising. The present thesis

has demonstrated the importance of measuring both individual job insecurity

and job insecurity climate perceptions in order to obtain a more complete

picture of the experience of job insecurity in an organization. The more we

can learn about the nature of the job insecurity climate construct and its

relations to individual job insecurity and work- and health-related outcomes,

the greater our potential will be for creating better workplaces.

55

References

Abraham, K. G., & Taylor, S. K. (1996). Firms' use of outside contractors:

theory and evidence. Journal of Labor Economics, 14(3), 394-424. Alderfer, C. P. (1969). An empirical test of a new theory of human needs.

Organizational behavior and human performance, 4(2), 142-175. Allen, D. K. (2003). Organisational climate and strategic change in higher

education: Organisational insecurity. Higher Education, 46(1), 61-92.

Ames, D., & Mason, M. (2012). Mind perception. In E. Fiske & N. Macrae (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of social cognition (pp. 115-137). London: Sage Publications, Ltd.

Ashkanasy, N. M., & Nicholson, G. J. (2003). Climate of fear in organisational settings: Construct definition, measurement and a test of theory. Australian Journal of Psychology, 55(1), 24-29.

Atkinson, J. (1984). Manpower strategies for flexible organisations. Personnel management, 16(8), 28-31.

Augoustinos, M., Walker, I., & Donaghue, N. (2014). Social cognition: An integrated introduction. London: Sage Publications, Ltd.

Baltes, B. B., Zhdanova, L. S., & Parker, C. P. (2009). Psychological climate: A comparison of organizational and individual level referents. Human Relations, 62(5), 669-700.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: Englewood Cliffs, NJ Prentice Hall.

Banks, W. P., & Krajicek, D. (1991). Perception. Annual review of psychology, 42(1), 305-331.

Barling, J., Dupre, K. E., & Hepburn, C. G. (1998). Effects of parents' job insecurity on children's work beliefs and attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(1), 112-118.

Barsade, S. G. (2002). The ripple effect: Emotional contagion and its influence on group behavior. Administrative science quarterly, 47(4), 644-675.

Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Bad is stronger than good. Review of general psychology, 5(4), 323-370.

Baumeister, R. F., & Muraven, M. (1996). Identity as adaptation to social, cultural, and historical context. Journal of Adolescence, 19(5), 405-416.

56

Belgian Federal Government Service of Economy. (2012). Labour Force Survey. Retrieved from http://statbel.fgov.be/nl/statistieken/gegevensinzameling/enquetes/eak/

Bernhard-Oettel, C. (2008). Alternative employment and well-being: Contract heterogenity and differences among individuals (Doctoral thesis, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden). Retrieved from http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:199453/FULLTEXT01 .pdf

Bernhard-Oettel, C., De Cuyper, N., Schreurs, B., & De Witte, H. (2011). Linking job insecurity to well-being and organizational attitudes in Belgian workers: The role of security expectations and fairness. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22(9), 1866-1886.

Bliese, P. D. (2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In K. J. Klein & S. W. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations (pp. 349-381). San Fransisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural Equations with Latent Variables. New York, NY: Wiley.

Bordia, P., Jones, E., Gallois, C., Callan, V. J., & DiFonzo, N. (2006). Management are aliens! Rumors and stress during organizational change. Group & Organization Management, 31(5), 601-621.

Boya, F. Ö., Demiral, Y., Ergör, A., Akvardar, Y., & De Witte, H. (2008). Effects of Perceived Job Insecurity on Perceived Anxiety and Depression in Nurses. Industrial Health, 46(6), 613-619.

Brayfield, A. H., & Rothe, H. F. (1951). An index of job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 35(5), 307-311.

Brown, T. A. (2012). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Burchell, B. (2009). Flexicurity as a moderator of the relationship between job insecurity and psychological well-being. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 2(3), 365-378.

Burchell, B., Ladipo, D., & Wilkinson, F. (2005). Job insecurity and work intensification. London: Routledge.

Burgard, S. A., Brand, J. E., & House, J. S. (2009). Perceived job insecurity and worker health in the United States. Social Science & Medicine, 69(5), 777-785.

Byrne, B. M. (2013). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. New York, NY: Routledge.

Büssing, A. (1999). Can control at work and social support moderate psychological consequences of job insecurity? Results from a quasi-experimental study in the steel industry. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8(2), 219-242.

57

Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological bulletin, 56(2), 81-105.

Chan, D. (1998). Functional Relations Among Constructs in the Same Content Domain at Different Levels of Analysis: A Typology of Composition Models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(2), 234-246.

Chan, D. (2009). So why ask me? Are self-report data really that bad. (In R. J. Vandenberg & C. E. Lance (Eds.), Statistical and methodological myths and urban legends: Doctrine, verity and fable in the organizational and social sciences (pp. 309-336). New York, NY: Routledge.

Cheng, G. H. L., & Chan, D. K. S. (2008). Who Suffers More from Job Insecurity? A Meta‐Analytic Review. Applied Psychology, 57(2), 272-303.

Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural equation modeling, 9(2), 233-255.

Chung, H., & Van Oorschot, W. (2011). Institutions versus market forces: Explaining the employment insecurity of European individuals during (the beginning of) the financial crisis. Journal of European Social Policy, 21(4), 287-301.

Cooper, C. L. (1999). Can we live with the changing nature of work? Journal of Managerial Psychology, 14(7/8), 569-572.

Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological bulletin, 52(4), 281-302.

D'Amato, A., & Zijlstra, F. R. (2008). Psychological climate and individual factors as antecedents of work outcomes. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 17(1), 33-54.

Davis, J. H. (2005). A" Constituent" Approach to the Study of Perspective

Taking: What Are Its Fundamental Elements? In B. F. Malle & S. D.

Hodges (Eds.), Other minds: how humans bridge the divide between

self and others (pp. 44-55). New York, NY: Guilford Press. De Cuyper, N., Sora, B., De Witte, H., Caballer, A., & Peiró, J. M. (2009).

Organizations’ Use of Temporary Employment and a Climate of Job Insecurity among Belgian and Spanish Permanent Workers. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 30(4), 564-591.

de Lange, A. H. (2005). What about causality? Examining longitudinal relations between work characteristics and mental health (Doctoral thesis, Radboud University, Nijmegen, the Netherlands). Retrieved from http://webdoc.ubn.ru.nl/mono/l/lange_a/whatabca.pdf

De Witte, H. (2000). Arbeidsethos en jobonzekerheid: Meting en gevolgen voor welzijn, tevredenheid en inzet op het werk [Work ethic and job insecurity: Measurement and consequences for well-being, satisfaction and performance]. In H. De Witte & T. Taillieu (Eds.), Van groep naar gemeenschap (pp. 325–350). Leuven: Garant.

58

De Witte, H. (2005). Job insecurity: Review of the international literature on definitions, prevalence, antecedents and consequences. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 31(4), 1-6.

De Witte, H., De Cuyper, N., Handaja, Y., Sverke, M., Näswall, K., & Hellgren, J. (2010). Associations Between Quantitative and Qualitative Job Insecurity and Well-Being: A Test in Belgian Banks. International Studies of Management & Organization, 40(1), 40-56.

Dickson, M. W., Aditya, R. N., & Chhokar, J. S. (2000). Definition and interpretation in cross-cultural organizational culture research: Some pointers from the GLOBE research program. In N. M. Ashkanasy, C. P. M. Wilderom, & M. F. Peterson (Eds.), Handbook of organizational culture and climate (pp. 447-464). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

DiFonzo, N., & Bordia, P. (2000). How top PR professionals handle hearsay: corporate rumors, their effects, and strategies to manage them. Public Relations Review, 26(2), 173-190.

DiFonzo, N., Bordia, P., & Rosnow, R. L. (1994). Reining in rumors. Organizational Dynamics, 23(1), 47-62.

Dormann, C., & Zapf, D. (2002). Social stressors at work, irritation, and depressive symptoms: Accounting for unmeasured third variables in a multi‐wave study. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75(1), 33-58.

Draper, N. R., & Smith, H. (1998). Ridge regression. In N. R. Draper & H. Smith (Eds.), Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics: Applied Regression Analysis (pp. 387-400). New York, NY: Wiley.

Dudenhöffer, S., & Dormann, C. (2013). Customer-related social stressors and service providers' affective reactions. Journal of organizational behavior, 34(4), 520-539.

Ehrhart, M. G., & Raver, J. L. (2014). The Effects of Organizational Climate and Culture on Productive and Counterproductive Behavior. In B. Schneider & K. M. Barbera (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Organizational Climate and Culture. Retrieved from http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199860715.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199860715

Emberland, J. S., & Rundmo, T. (2010). Implications of job insecurity perceptions and job insecurity responses for psychological well-being, turnover intentions and reported risk behavior. Safety Science, 48(4), 452-459.

Eriksen, H. R., Svendsrod, R., Ursin, G., & Ursin, H. (1998). Prevalence of subjective health complaints in the Nordic European countries in 1993. The European Journal of Public Health, 8(4), 294-298.

European Commision. (2011). Special eurobarometer377: Employment and Social Policy. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_377_en.pdf

Frone, M. R., Russell, M., & Cooper, M. L. (1992). Antecedents and outcomes of work-family conflict: testing a model of the work-family interface. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(1), 65-78.

59

Furåker, B., Håkansson, K., & Karlsson, J. C. (2007). Reclaiming the Concept of Flexibility. In B. Furåker, K. Håkansson, & J. C. Karlsson (Eds.), Flexibility and Stability in Working Life (pp. 1-17). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Gallie, D., Felstead, A., Green, F., & Inanc, H. (2013). Fear at work in Britain: First findings from the Skills and Employment Survey 2012. Retrieved from http://orca.cf.ac.uk/67986/1/4.%20Fear%20at%20Work%20Minireport.pdf

Geach, P., & Black, M. (1952). Translations from the Philosophical Writings of Gottlob Frege. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

González‐Romá, V., Peiró, J. M., Lloret, S., & Zornoza, A. (1999). The validity of collective climates. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72(1), 25-40.

Green, F. (2011). Unpacking the misery multiplier: How employability modifies the impacts of unemployment and job insecurity on life satisfaction and mental health. Journal of health economics, 30(2), 265-276.

Greenhalgh, L., & Rosenblatt, Z. (1984). Job insecurity: Toward conceptual clarity. Academy of Management review, 9(3), 438-448.

Greenhalgh, L., & Rosenblatt, Z. (2010). Evolution of research on job insecurity. International Studies of Management and Organization, 40(1), 6-19.

Guion, R. M. (1973). A note on organizational climate. Organizational behavior and human performance, 9(1), 120-125.

Hamaker, E. L., Kuiper, R. M., & Grasman, R. P. P. P. (2015). A critique of the cross-lagged panel model. Psychological methods, 20(1), 102-116.

Happé, F. (2003). Theory of mind and the self. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1001(1), 134-144.

Hartley, J., Jacobson, D., Klandermans, B., & Van Vuuren, T. (1990). Job insecurity: Coping with jobs at risk. London: Sage Publications Ltd.

Heaney, C. A., Israel, B. A., & House, J. S. (1994). Chronic job insecurity among automobile workers: Effects on job satisfaction and health. Social Science & Medicine, 38(10), 1431-1437.

Heery, E., & Salmon, J. (2002). The insecure workforce. London: Routledge.

Hellgren, J., Sjöberg, A., & Sverke, M. (1997). Intention to quit: Effects of

job satisfaction and job perceptions. In F. Avallone, J. Arnold, & K.

de Witte (Eds.), Feelings work in Europe (pp. 415-423). Milano:

Guerini. Hellgren, J., & Sverke, M. (2003). Does job insecurity lead to impaired well-

being or vice versa? Estimation of cross-lagged effects using latent variable modelling. Journal of organizational behavior, 24(2), 215-236.

Hellgren, J., Sverke, M., & Isaksson, K. (1999). A Two-dimensional Approach to Job Insecurity: Consequences for Employee Attitudes

60

and Well-being. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8(2), 179-195.

Holmes, T. H., & Rahe, R. H. (1967). The social readjustment rating scale. Journal of psychosomatic research, 11(2), 213-218.

Houseman, S. N. (2001). Why employers use flexible staffing arrangements: Evidence from an establishment survey. Industrial & Labor Relations Review, 55(1), 149-170.

Hox, J. J. (2002). Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Idler, E. L., & Benyamini, Y. (1997). Self-rated health and mortality: a review of twenty-seven community studies. Journal of health and social behavior, 38(1), 21-37.

International Labour Office (ILO) (2015). World Employment Social

Outlook: The changing nature of jobs. Geneva: ILO. Retrieved from

http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---dgreports/---dcomm/---

publ/documents/publication/wcms_368626.pdf Jahoda, M. (1982). Employment and unemployment: a social-psychological

analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. James, L. R., & Sells, S. B. (1981). Psychological climate: Theoretical

perspectives and empirical research. In D. Magnusson (Ed.), Toward a psychology of situations: An interactional perspective (pp. 275-295). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

James, L. A., & James, L. R. (1989). Integrating work environment perceptions: Explorations into the measurement of meaning. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(5), 739-751.

James, L. R., Choi, C. C., Ko, C.-H. E., McNeil, P. K., Minton, M. K., Wright, M. A., & Kim, K.-i. (2008). Organizational and psychological climate: A review of theory and research. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 17(1), 5-32.

James, L. R., & Jones, A. P. (1974). Organizational climate: A review of theory and research. Psychological bulletin, 81(12), 1096-1112.

Joelson, L., & Wahlquist, L. (1987). The psychological meaning of job insecurity and job loss: results of a longitudinal study. Social Science & Medicine, 25(2), 179-182.

Johnson, J. R., Bernhagen, M. J., Miller, V., & Allen, M. (1996). The role of

communication in managing reductions in work force. Journal of

Applied Communication Research, 24, 137-164. Kalleberg, A. L. (2000). Nonstandard employment relations: Part-time,

temporary and contract work. Annual review of sociology, 26, 341-365.

Karasek, R. A. (1979). Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: Implications for job redesign. Administrative science quarterly, 24(2), 285-308.

Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations. New York, NY: Wiley.

Keim, A. C., Landis, R. S., Pierce, C. A., & Earnest, D. R. (2014). Why do employees worry about their jobs? A meta-analytic review of

61

predictors of job insecurity. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 19(3), 269-290.

Kinnunen, U., Mauno, S., Nätti, J., & Happonen, M. (2000). Organizational antecedents and outcomes of job insecurity: a longitudinal study in three organizations in Finland. Journal of organizational behavior, 21(4), 443-459.

Klandermans, B., & van Vuuren, T. (1999). Job insecurity: introduction. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8(2), 145-153.

Koffka, K. (2013). Principles of Gestalt psychology. Oxon: Routledge. Kozlowski, S. W., & Klein, K. J. (2000). A multilevel approach to theory

and research in organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In K. J. Klein & S. W. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations. Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 3-90). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Kozusznik, M. W., Rodríguez, I., & Peiró, J. M. (2015). Eustress and distress climates in teams: Patterns and outcomes. International Journal of Stress Management, 22(1), 1-23.

Kristof-Brown, A. (2006). Person-environment interaction. In N. Nicholson, P. G. Audia, & M. M. Pillutla (Eds.), The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Management (pp. 310-311). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Landis, R. S., James, L. R., Lance, C. E., Pierce, C. A., & Rogelberg, S. G. (2014). When is Nothing Something? Editorial for the Null Results Special Issue of Journal of Business and Psychology. Journal of Business and Psychology, 29(2), 163-167.

Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, Appraisal, and Coping. New York, NY: Springer Publishing Company, Inc.

LeBreton, J. M., & Senter, J. L. (2008). Answers to 20 Questions About Interrater Reliability and Interrater Agreement. Organizational Research Methods, 11(4), 815-852.

Lewchuk, W., Laflèche, M., Procyk, S., Cook, C., Dyson, D., Goldring, L., . . . Viducis, P. (2015). The Precarity Penalty: The impact of employment precarity on individuals, households and communities ―and what to do about it. Retrieved from http://www.unitedwaytoronto.com/document.doc?id=307

Lewin, K. (1938). Will and needs. In E. D. Willis (Ed), A source book of Gestalt psychology (pp. 283-299). London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Company.

Lundberg, U., Mårdberg, B., & Frankenhaeuser, M. (1994). The total workload of male and female white collar workers as related to age, occupational level, and number of children. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 35(4), 315-327.

Lübke, C., & Erlinghagen, M. (2014). Self-perceived job insecurity across Europe over time–does changing context matter? Journal of European Social Policy, 24(4), 319-336.

62

Låstad, L., Berntson, E., Näswall, K., Lindfors, P., & Sverke, M. (2015). Measuring quantitative and qualitative aspects of the job insecurity climate. Career Development International, 20(3), 202-217.

Länsisalmi, H., Peiró, J. M., & Kivimäki, M. (2000). Collective stress and coping in the context of organizational culture. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 9(4), 527-559.

Magnusson, D. (1981). Wanted: A psychology of situations. In D. Magnusson (Ed.), Toward a psychology of situations: An interactional perspective. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Magnusson, D. (2000). The individual as the organizing principle in psychological inquiry: A holistic approach. In L. R. Bergman, R. B. Cairns, L.-G. Nilsson, & L. Nystedt (Eds.), Developmental science and the holistic approach (pp. 33-48). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Malle, B. F., & Hodges, S. D. (2007). Other minds: How humans bridge the divide between self and others: Guilford Press.

Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological review, 50(4), 370-396.

Mauno, S., De Cuyper, N., Tolvanen, A., Kinnunen, U., & Mäkikangas, A. (2013). Occupational well-being as a mediator between job insecurity and turnover intention: Findings at the individual and work department levels. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 23(3), 381-393.

Mauno, S., & Kinnunen, U. (2002). Perceived job insecurity among dual‐earner couples: Do its antecedents vary according to gender, economic sector and the measure used? Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75(3), 295-314.

Mauno, S., Kinnunen, U., Mäkikangas, A., & Nätti, J. (2005). Psychological consequences of fixed-term employment and perceived job insecurity among health care staff. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 14(3), 209-237.

McLean Parks, J., Kidder, D. L., & Gallagher, D. G. (1998). Fitting square pegs into round holes: Mapping the domain of contingent work arrangements onto the psychological contract. Journal of organizational behavior, 19, 697-730.

Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, Self, and Society. From the standpoint of a Social Behaviorist. Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press.

Meltzer, H., Bebbington, P., Brugha, T., Jenkins, R., McManus, S., & Stansfeld, S. (2010). Job insecurity, socio-economic circumstances and depression. Psychological medicine, 40(08), 1401-1407.

Miana, B. S., González-Morales, M. G., Caballer, A., & Peiró, J. M. (2011). Consequences of job insecurity and the moderator role of occupational group. The Spanish journal of psychology, 14(02), 820-831.

Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998-2012). Mplus User’s Guide. Seventh Edition. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.

63

Mårdberg, B., Lundberg, U., & Frankenhaeuser, M. (1991). The total workload of parents employed in white‐collar jobs: construction of a questionnaire and a scoring system. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 32(3), 233-239.

Nesheim, T. (2004). 20 år med Atkinson-modellen: åtte teser om’den fleksible bedrift’. Sosiologisk tidsskrift, 12(1), 3-24.

Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Näswall, K., & De Witte, H. (2003). Who feels insecure in Europe?

Predicting job insecurity from background variables. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 24(2), 189-215.

Näswall, K., Lindfors, P., & Sverke, M. (2012). Job Insecurity as a Predictor of Physiological Indicators of Health in Healthy Working Women: An Extension of Previous Research. Stress and Health, 28(3), 255-263. doi: 10.1002/smi.1430

Nätti, J., Happonen, M., Kinnunen, U., & Mauno, S. (2005). Job insecurity,

temporary work and trade union membership in Finland 1977–2003.

In H. De Witte (Ed.), Job insecurity, union involvement and union

activism (pp. 11-48). Aldershot: Ashgate. Osgood, C. E., Suci, G. J., & Tannenbaum, P. H. (1967). The Measurement

of Meaning. Urbana, Chicago, and London: University of Illinois Press.

Parent-Thirion, A., Vermeylen, G., van Houten, G., Lyly-Yrjänäinen, M., Biletta, I., Cabrita, J., & Niedhammer, I. (2012). Fifth European working conditions survey. Luxembourg: Eurofound, Publications Office of the European Union. Retrieved from http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/sites/default/files/ef_publication/field_ef_document/ef1182en.pdf

Parker, R. E. (1994). Why temporary workers have become a permanent fixture. Business and Society Review, 36.

Perrewé, P. L., & Zellars, K. L. (1999). An examination of attributions and emotions in the transactional approach to the organizational stress process. Journal of organizational behavior, 20(5), 739-752.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879-903.

Probst, T. M., Stewart, S. M., Gruys, M. L., & Tierney, B. W. (2007). Productivity, counterproductivity and creativity: The ups and downs of job insecurity. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80(3), 479-497.

Richter, A., Näswall, K., Lindfors, P., & Sverke, M. (2015). Job insecurity and work–family conflict in teachers in Sweden: Examining their relations with longitudinal cross‐lagged modeling. PsyCh Journal, 4(2), 98-111.

Rimé, B. (2007). The social sharing of emotion as an interface between individual and collective processes in the construction of emotional climates. Journal of social issues, 63(2), 307-322.

64

Roe, R. A. (2013). Test validity from a temporal perspective: Incorporating time in validation research. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 23(5), 754-768.

Rosenblatt, Z., & Ruvio, A. (1996). A test of a multidimensional model of job insecurity: The case of Israeli teachers. Journal of organizational behavior, 17, 587-605.

Rousseau, D. M. (1988). The construction of climate in organizational research. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.) International review of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 139-158). Oxford: John Wiley & Sons.

Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. (1978). A social information processing approach to job attitudes and task design. Administrative science quarterly, 23(2), 224-253.

Schaufeli, W. B., Leiter, M. P., Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. E. (1996). MBI-General Survey. In C.Maslach, S. E. Jackson, & M. P. Leiter (Eds.), Maslach Bumout Inventory manual (3rd ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Pyschologists Press.

Schein, E. H. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Schneider, B. (1975). Organizational climates: An essay. Personnel Psychology, 28(4), 447-479.

Schneider, B., & Barbera, K. M. (2014). Introduction. In B. Schneider & K. M. Barbera (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Organizational Climate and Culture. Retrieved from http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199860715.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199860715-e-001

Schneider, B., Ehrhart, M. G., & Macey, W. H. (2011). Perspectives on organizational climate and culture. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology. (Vol 1: Building and developing the organization., pp. 373-414). Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association.

Schneider, B., Ehrhart, M. G., & Macey, W. H. (2013). Organizational climate and culture. Annual review of psychology, 64, 361-388.

Schreurs, B., Van Emmerik, H., Notelaers, G., & De Witte, H. (2010). Job insecurity and employee health: The buffering potential of job control and job self-efficacy. Work & Stress, 24(1), 56-72.

Schutte, N., Toppinen, S., Kalimo, R., & Schaufeli, W. (2000). The factorial validity of the Maslach Burnout Inventory‐General Survey (MBI‐GS) across occupational groups and nations. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73(1), 53-66.

Schweiger, D. M., & Denisi, A. S. (1991). Communication with employees following a merger: A longitudinal field experiment. Academy of Management Journal, 34(1), 110-135.

Shapira, O., Liberman, N., Trope, N., & Rim, S. (2012). Levels of mental construal. In S. T. Fiske & C. N. Macrae (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of social cognition (pp. 229-250). London: Sage Publications Ltd.

65

Siegrist, J., Peter, R., Junge, A., Cremer, P., & Seidel, D. (1990). Low status control, high effort at work and ischemic heart disease: Prospective evidence from blue-collar men. Social Science & Medicine, 31(10), 1127-1134.

Sora, B., Caballer, A., Peiró, J. M., & De Witte, H. (2009). Job insecurity climate's influence on employees' job attitudes: Evidence from two European countries. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 18(2), 125-147.

Sora, B., De Cuyper, N., Caballer, A., Peiró, J. M., & De Witte, H. (2013). Outcomes of Job Insecurity Climate: The Role of Climate Strength. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 62(3), 382-405.

Spector, P. E. (1994). Using self-report questionnaires in OB research: a comment on the use of a controversial method. Journal of organizational behavior, 15(5), 385-392.

Spector, P. E. (2006). Method variance in organizational research truth or urban legend? Organizational Research Methods, 9(2), 221-232.

Spector, P. E., & Jex, S. M. (1998). Development of four self-report measures of job stressors and strain: Interpersonal Conflict at Work Scale, Organizational Constraints Scale, Quantitative Workload Inventory, and Physical Symptoms Inventory. Journal of occupational health psychology, 3(4), 356-367.

Stansfeld, S., & Candy, B. (2006). Psychosocial work environment and mental health—a meta-analytic review. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health, 32(6), 443-462.

Størseth, F. (2006). Changes at work and employee reactions: Organizational elements, job insecurity, and short‐term stress as predictors for employee health and safety. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 47(6), 541-550.

Sverke, M., Hellgren, J., & Näswall, K. (2002). No security: a meta-analysis and review of job insecurity and its consequences. Journal of occupational health psychology, 7(3), 242-264.

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2014). Using Multivariate Statistics. Essex: Pearson Education Limited.

Taris, T. W., & Kompier, M. A. (2014). Cause and effect: Optimizing the designs of longitudinal studies in occupational health psychology. Work & Stress, 28(1), 1-8.

Tibblin, G., Bengtsson, C., Furunes, B., & Lapidus, L. (1990). Symptoms by age and sex: the population studies of men and women in Gothenburg, Sweden. Scandinavian Journal of Primary Health Care, 8(1), 9-17.

Wagner, S. M., Rau, C., & Lindemann, E. (2010). Multiple informant methodology: a critical review and recommendations. Sociological Methods & Research, 38(4), 582-618.

Walters, V., McDonough, P., & Strohschein, L. (2002). The influence of work, household structure, and social, personal and material resources on gender differences in health: an analysis of the 1994

66

Canadian National Population Health Survey. Social Science & Medicine, 54(5), 677-692.

van Ginkel, W. P., & van Knippenberg, D. (2008). Group information elaboration and group decision making: The role of shared task representations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 105(1), 82-97.

Van Wijk, C. M., & Kolk, A. M. (1997). Sex differences in physical symptoms: the contribution of symptom perception theory. Social Science & Medicine, 45(2), 231-246.

Vander Elst, T., Baillien, E., De Cuyper, N., & De Witte, H. (2010). The role of organizational communication and participation in reducing job insecurity and its negative association with work-related well-being. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 31(2), 249-264.

Vander Elst, T., De Witte, H., & De Cuyper, N. (2014). The Job Insecurity Scale: A psychometric evaluation across five European countries. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 23(3), 364-380.

Vander Elst, T., Richter, A., Sverke, M., Näswall, K., De Cuyper, N., & De Witte, H. (2014). Threat of losing valued job features: The role of perceived control in mediating the effect of qualitative job insecurity on job strain and psychological withdrawal. Work & Stress, 28(2), 143-164.

Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organization science, 16(4), 409-421.

Westman, M., Etzion, D., & Danon, E. (2001). Job insecurity and crossover of burnout in married couples. Journal of organizational behavior, 22(5), 467-481.

Yang, L.-Q., Liu, C., Nauta, M. M., Caughlin, D. E., & Spector, P. E. (2014). Be Mindful of What You Impose on Your Colleagues: Implications of Social Burden for Burdenees' Well‐being, Attitudes and Counterproductive Work Behaviour. Stress and Health. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1002/smi.2581

Zapf, D., Dormann, C., & Frese, M. (1996). Longitudinal studies in organizational stress research: a review of the literature with reference to methodological issues. Journal of occupational health psychology, 1(2), 145-169.

Zapf, D., Seifert, C., Schmutte, B., Mertini, H., & Holz, M. (2001). Emotion work and job stressors and their effects on burnout. Psychology & Health, 16(5), 527-545.

Zohar, D. (2010). Thirty years of safety climate research: Reflections and future directions. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 42(5), 1517-1522.

Zohar, D., & Luria, G. (2005). A Multilevel Model of Safety Climate: Cross-Level Relationships Between Organization and Group-Level Climates. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(4), 616-628.