Moderators of the effects of perceived job insecurity:

A comparison of temporary and permanent employees

Lynette Joy Clark

BComm. (Hons) Griffith

Submitted to the School of Management

Queensland University of Technology

Brisbane, Queensland, Australia

In fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

2005

i

Abstract

Perceived job insecurity is receiving increasing recognition as an important

determinant of employee work outcomes. Empirical research consistently shows that

job insecurity perceptions are associated with adverse reactions by employees, in

terms of reduced psychological well-being (De Witte, 1999), job satisfaction

(O’Quin & LoTempio, 1998), and organisational commitment (Rosenblatt & Ruvio,

1996). Turnover intentions for the job-insecure are higher (Tivendell & Bourbonnai,

2000) as well. It is therefore important to understand what may increase or decrease

such detrimental effects of job insecurity. Even so, it was not until the late 1990s

that much academic literature was published in the field (De Witte & Näswall, 2003).

Employees not only worry about their assessment of the likelihood of job loss, but

also about the consequences of such an occurrence (Burchell, 2002). This

dissertation argues that perceived job insecurity is a function of what an individual

believes is an acceptable risk of job loss given their individual circumstances. Based

on the literature, a model is developed proposing a number of moderators of the

effects of job insecurity. One of those moderators is temporary job status. Little

research is available that examines how job insecurity influences the work attitudes

and behaviours of temporaries (De Witte, 1999; Kinnuen & Nätti, 1994; Sloboda,

1999). Few studies compare temporaries’ reactions to those of traditional, permanent

employees. Study one examined whether temporaries had higher job insecurity than

permanents in a sample of three hundred and ninety-one employees (122 temporary

and 269 permanent) in low to medium level non-academic positions at two

Australian universities. No significant differences were found. However,

temporaries and permanents reacted differently to job insecurity when a number of

individual differences were also considered.

The temporary employment literature consistently shows that individuals that prefer

temporary work have more positive work outcomes (Feldman, 1990, 1995). Thus

the extent of choice temporaries had in their job status was chosen as a potential

moderator of job insecurity relationships. Findings indicate that choice in job status

differentially influenced the contextual performance, continuance commitment, and

ii

turnover intentions of temporaries and permanents, as predicted. For example, when

temporaries preferred temporary work and felt secure, they had similar turnover

intentions to permanents. Explanations why individuals involuntarily accept

temporary work include a lack of job alternatives. Thus another moderator tested

was employability, concerning perceptions about finding comparable employment in

the event of job loss. Employability influenced the continuance commitment and

intention to change job status of temporaries and permanents differently. In

particular, the findings suggest that the negative effects of job insecurity worsened

for highly employable temporaries, decreasing their continuance commitment, since

when secure, highly employable temporaries and permanents had similar

continuance commitment levels.

Subjective job dependency, as a moderator of job insecurity, affected temporaries

and permanents in the same way. Specifically, the more insecure and the less

dependent the employee was the lower was their contextual performance. Two

sources of social support were also tested in study one. One source, social support

from supervisors and co-workers was shown to differentially influence the contextual

performance of temporaries and permanents. Specifically, the negative effects of job

insecurity were alleviated for temporaries with high organisational social support,

such that their contextual performance was higher than that of permanents. Family

social support and temporary job status also moderated the relationship between job

insecurity and job satisfaction, though not as predicted. For temporaries, the level of

family social support did not influence the effects of job insecurity on job

satisfaction. For permanents though, family social support alleviated the effects of

job insecurity, such that the more family social support experienced the higher the

job satisfaction.

A follow-up study (n = 116) was conducted one year later. The longitudinal effects

of job insecurity were examined. Of the work outcomes assessed, only continuance

commitment was predicted by Time 1 job insecurity, once prior levels of the

outcome variables were controlled. A second purpose of study two was to test job

embeddedness - a measure of employee retention - as a moderator of the relationship

between job insecurity and work outcomes. The results indicate that the negative

effects of job insecurity were exacerbated when employees perceived their

iii

organisation-related sacrifices to be great, lessening both their affective commitment

and contextual performance contributions. Theoretical and practical implications of

the results of both studies are discussed. For instance, these findings suggest that

temporary job status should not be used as a proxy measure of job insecurity.

Finally, directions for future research are proposed.

iv

Table of Contents Abstract ......................................................................................................................... i Table of Contents ........................................................................................................ iv Index of Tables...........................................................................................................vii Index of Figures .......................................................................................................... ix Statement of Authorship............................................................................................... x Acknowledgements .....................................................................................................xi Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................ 1 Chapter 2: Job insecurity.............................................................................................. 7

Conceptualizing job insecurity................................................................................. 7 Measuring subjective job insecurity....................................................................... 15 Correlates of job insecurity .................................................................................... 24 Moderators of the effects of job insecurity ............................................................ 29 Consequences of job insecurity.............................................................................. 34

Chapter 3: Temporary employment ........................................................................... 42 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 42 The changing nature of work ................................................................................. 43 Nature of temporary employment .......................................................................... 44 Organisational Behaviour (OB) approaches to understanding temporary employment ............................................................................................................ 47

Atheoretical approach ........................................................................................ 47 ‘Frame of reference’ approach ........................................................................... 49 Partial inclusion approach .................................................................................. 53 Psychological contract theory approach............................................................. 56 Demographic approach ...................................................................................... 60 Work status congruence approach...................................................................... 63 Volition (choice of job status) approach ............................................................ 66

Predictability and job continuity for temporary workers ....................................... 77 Job insecurity and temporary employment ............................................................ 80 Rationale for study one .......................................................................................... 85 Final research model and hypotheses for study one............................................... 87

Chapter 4: Methodology – Study 1 ............................................................................ 99 Sampling strategy................................................................................................... 99 Procedure.............................................................................................................. 100 Sample.................................................................................................................. 101 Instrument............................................................................................................. 104

Measures........................................................................................................... 104 Methods of analysis.............................................................................................. 113

Chapter 5: Results – Study 1 .................................................................................... 119 Descriptive statistics of combined data................................................................ 119 Tests of hypotheses .............................................................................................. 121

Hypothesis 1: Reactions to job insecurity ....................................................... 121 Hypothesis 2: Comparing job insecurity – temporaries & permanents .......... 121 Hypothesis 3: Choice in job status .................................................................. 125 Hypothesis 4: Employability............................................................................ 138 Hypothesis 5: Subjective job dependency....................................................... 149 Hypothesis 6: Organisational social support .................................................... 153

v

Hypothesis 7: Family social support ................................................................ 160 Chapter 6: Discussion – Study 1 .............................................................................. 166

Correlates of job insecurity .................................................................................. 166 Consequences of job insecurity............................................................................ 168 Moderators of job insecurity ................................................................................ 170

Choice in job status: how it influences employees’ reactions to job insecurity – Hypothesis 3..................................................................................................... 171 Employability: how it influences employees’ reactions to job insecurity – Hypothesis 4..................................................................................................... 174 Subjective job dependency: how it influences employees’ reactions to job insecurity – Hypothesis 5 ................................................................................. 175 Organisational social support: how it influences employees’ reactions to job insecurity – Hypothesis 6 ................................................................................. 176 Family social support: how it influences employees’ reactions to job insecurity – Hypothesis 7.................................................................................................. 178

Direct effects of job status on job insecurity perceptions .................................... 180 Chapter 7: Long term effects of job insecurity and job embeddedness ................... 184

Long term effects of job insecurity ...................................................................... 184 Conceptualizing job embeddedness ..................................................................... 185 Job embeddedness as a moderator of job insecurity ............................................ 187

Chapter 8: Methodology – Study 2 .......................................................................... 190 Sampling strategy and procedure......................................................................... 190 Participants........................................................................................................... 192 Instrument ............................................................................................................ 192 Measures .............................................................................................................. 193 Moderator variables ............................................................................................. 196 Control variables .................................................................................................. 198 Methods of analysis ............................................................................................. 198

Chapter 9: Results – Study 2.................................................................................... 200 Descriptive statistics ............................................................................................ 200 Tests of hypotheses .............................................................................................. 205

Longitudinal analyses - Hypothesis 1 .............................................................. 205 Longitudinal analyses – Predictors of turnover ............................................... 210 Moderator analyses - Hypothesis 2.................................................................. 214

Chapter 10: Discussion – Study 2 ............................................................................ 225 Long term effects of job insecurity ...................................................................... 225 Job embeddedness as a moderator of job insecurity ............................................ 228 Predictors of turnover........................................................................................... 231

Chapter 11: Conclusion............................................................................................ 234 What individual characteristics contributed to reactions to job insecurity? ........ 235 Overall conclusions about job insecurity ............................................................. 236 Overall conclusions about moderators of job insecurity...................................... 238 Strengths and limitations...................................................................................... 243 Theoretical and practical implications ................................................................. 245 Directions for future research .............................................................................. 248

References ................................................................................................................ 251 Appendix 1 – Letter of Introduction – study one..................................................... 275 Appendix 2 – Questionnaire – study one ................................................................. 276 Appendix 3 – Letter of Introduction – study two..................................................... 284 Appendix 4 – Questionnaire – study two................................................................. 285

vi

Appendix 5 – Follow-up letter – study two.............................................................. 290

vii

Index of Tables Table 4-1 Demographic characteristics for samples at both organisations (in

percentages) ..................................................................................................... 103 Table 4-2 Descriptive statistics and t-tests comparing continuous variables between

organisations .................................................................................................... 114 Table 4-3 Descriptive statistics and Pearson Chi-square tests comparing categorical

variables between organisations....................................................................... 115 Table 5-1 Descriptive statistics, intercorrelations, and reliability estimates for study

variables ........................................................................................................... 120 Table 5-2 Regression results for the effects of job insecurity................................. 122 Table 5-3 Regression results for contextual performance as a function of job

insecurity and multiple job options.................................................................. 127 Table 5-4 Regression results for continuance commitment as a function of job

insecurity, job status, and preference for permanent work .............................. 129 Table 5-5 Regression results for contextual performance as a function of job

insecurity, job status, and preference for permanent work .............................. 133 Table 5-7 Regression results for job satisfaction as a function of job status and

employability ................................................................................................... 139 Table 5-8 Regression results for affective commitment as a function of job status

and employability............................................................................................. 141 Table 5-9 Regression results for continuance commitment as a function of job

insecurity, job status and employability........................................................... 144 Table 5-10 Regression results for intention to change job status as a function of job

insecurity, job status, and employability.......................................................... 147 Table 5-11 Regression results for contextual performance as a function of job

dependency and job insecurity ......................................................................... 150 Table 5-12 Regression results for intention to change job status as a function of job

status and job dependency................................................................................ 152 Table 5-13 Regression results for affective commitment as a function of job

insecurity and organisational social support .................................................... 154 Table 5-14 Regression results for intention to change job status as a function of job

status and organisational social support........................................................... 156 Table 5-15 Regression results for contextual performance as a function of job

insecurity, job status, and organisational social support .................................. 158 Table 5-16 Regression results for job satisfaction as a function of job insecurity, job

status, and family social support ...................................................................... 161 Table 5-17 Regression results for contextual performance as a function of job

insecurity, job status, and family social support .............................................. 164 Table 8-1 Demographic characteristics comparisons of volunteer and non-volunteer

participants for Study 2 .................................................................................... 191 Table 8-2 Descriptive statistics and t-tests comparing continuous variables between

Study 1 respondents (non-volunteers) and Study 2 respondents ..................... 199 Table 9-1 Exploratory factor analytic results for job embeddedness scale with a six-

factor solution .................................................................................................. 201 Table 9-2 Exploratory factor analytic results for job embeddedness scale with a

three-factor solution. ........................................................................................ 203 Table 9-3 Descriptive statistics, intercorrelations, and reliability estimates for study

variables. .......................................................................................................... 204

viii

Table 9-4 Longitudinal hierarchical regression results for Time 2 outcome variables........................................................................................................................... 207

Table 9-5 Intercorrelations for study one and study two variables ......................... 209 Table 9-6 Descriptive statistics and t-tests comparing variables between stayers and

leavers............................................................................................................... 211 Table 9-7 (a) Logistic regression analysis of the significant factors associated with

turnover controlling for Time 1 turnover intentions ........................................ 212 Table 9-7 (b) Logistic regression analysis of the significant factors associated with

turnover controlling for Time 1 turnover intention, job status and intention to change job status .............................................................................................. 214

Table 9-8 Regression results for outcome variables as a function of job insecurity and fit................................................................................................................ 217

Table 9-9 Regression results for outcome variables as a function of job insecurity and sacrifice...................................................................................................... 221

Table 9-10 Regression results for outcome variables as a function of job insecurity and links. .......................................................................................................... 224

ix

Index of Figures Fig. 2-1 Preliminary research model – Study 1 ........................................................ 23 Fig. 3-1 Final research model – Study 1 ................................................................... 88 Fig. 5-1 Relationship between job insecurity and contextual performance as a

function of multiple job options....................................................................... 128 Fig. 5-2 Relationship between job insecurity and continuance commitment as a

function of job status and preference for permanent work .............................. 131 Fig. 5-3 Relationship between job insecurity and contextual performance as a

function of job status and preference for permanent work .............................. 134 Fig. 5-4 Relationship between job insecurity and turnover intentions as a function of

job status and preference for permanent work ................................................. 137 Fig. 5-5 Relationship between job status and job satisfaction as a function of

employability ................................................................................................... 140 Fig. 5-6 Relationship between job status and affective commitment as a function of

employability ................................................................................................... 142 Fig. 5-7 Relationship between job insecurity and continuance commitment as a

function of job status and employability.......................................................... 145 Fig. 5-8 Relationship between job insecurity and intention to change job status as a

function of job status and employability.......................................................... 148 Fig. 5-9 Relationship between job insecurity and contextual performance as a

function of subjective job dependency............................................................. 151 Fig. 5-10 Relationship between job status and intention to change job status as a

function of subjective job dependency............................................................. 153 Fig. 5-11 Relationship between job insecurity and affective commitment as a

function of organisational social support ......................................................... 155 Fig. 5-12 Relationship between intention to change job status and job status as a

function of organisational social support ......................................................... 157 Fig. 5-13 Relationship between job insecurity and contextual performance as a

function of job status and organisational social support .................................. 159 Fig. 5-14 Relationship between job insecurity and job satisfaction as a function of

job status and family social support ................................................................. 162 Fig. 5-15 Relationship between job insecurity and contextual performance as a

function of job status and family social support .............................................. 165 Fig. 7-1 Proposed research model - Study 2 ........................................................... 188 Fig. 9-1 Relationship between job insecurity and affective commitment as a function

of sacrifice........................................................................................................ 219 Fig. 9-2 Relationship between job insecurity and contextual performance as a

function of sacrifice ......................................................................................... 220

x

Statement of Authorship

The work contained in this thesis has not been previously submitted for a degree or diploma at any other higher education institution. To the best of my knowledge and belief, the thesis contains no material previously published or written by another person except where due reference is made.

Signed:

Date: 4 October, 2005

xi

Acknowledgements

Completion of this thesis would not have been possible without the guidance and support

of a number of individuals to whom I am exceedingly grateful. I would like to

acknowledge the significant contribution of my supervisors, Lisa Bradley (principal) and

Boris Kabonoff (associate), for their guidance and patience, especially when it seemed

that this project would never be completed. I also extend my thanks to Stephen Cox

(FOB statistical advisor) for his lunchtime companionship and his sage statistical advice

in spite of my bewildering questions. I am also indebted to Nerina Jimmieson (former

associate) for her helpful input in the first year of my research.

My thesis would not be complete without the infrastructure and research support of the

ACSM and the School of Management, QUT. My appreciation also extends to Kylie

Hansson and Jan Nixon for their constant support and encouragement. Moreover this

research would not have been possible without access to the employees at my two

research organisations. My gratitude goes to all those that gave their time to provide my

project with data.

Many thanks are also in order for my friends, even my second-best ones. Without their

reassurance and encouragement to sustain me, I have no doubts that this dissertation

would not exist.

1

Chapter 1: Introduction

The traditional expectation of a ‘job for life’ in exchange for hard work and loyalty is

rapidly declining (Brown, 1997; De Meuse, Bergmann & Lester, 2001).

Employment risks are increasingly being absorbed by employees as they move in

and out of different kinds of employment relationships (Allen & Henry, 1997;

Bluestone & Bluestone, 1992; Cappelli, 1995; Kalleberg, Reskin & Hudson, 2000;

Osterman & Kochan, 1990). Career responsibility is shifting away from employers

to the individual (Arthur & Rousseau, 1996; Bergström, 2001; Ward, Grimshaw,

Rubery & Beynon, 2001). Workers can therefore expect to negotiate a continuum of

organisational inclusiveness in labour contracts (Pfeffer & Baron, 1988): from long

term stable employment with employer-sponsored training and career ladders

through to external employment, with shorter tenure jobs where skill development

and advancement rests more heavily upon individual initiative.

Not surprisingly then, job insecurity is receiving increasing academic interest in

recognition of rapidly changing work environments that can create job loss threats

for organisational members (Borg & Elizur, 1992; Cavanaugh & Noe, 1999;

Kinnunen, Mauno, Nätti, & Happonen, 1999). Job insecurity though, may not

necessarily lead to job loss or unemployment. Consequently, it can be assumed that

the population of the job-insecure outnumbers the group of employees who actually

lose their job (De Witte & Näswall, 2003). Given that a growing body of theoretical

and applied research shows that job future uncertainty has detrimental effects on

employee well-being and work attitudes and behaviours (e.g., Ashford, Lee, &

Bobko, 1989; Barling & Gallagher, 1996), it is therefore important that we

understand precisely what may compound or ameliorate an employee’s fear of

involuntary termination of their employment relationship.

Alongside these pressures for traditional permanent employees, an expanding

proportion of the workforce is moving to temporary work contracts (Bergström,

2001; Brewster & Mayne, 1997; Hall, 2000). Since the 1990s, many Western

industrialized countries have witnessed a decline in the proportion of permanent jobs,

2

and an increase in the number of non-standard work arrangements, such as temporary

work. For organisations, such arrangements increase flexibility to deal with

changing market conditions and shifting organisational needs (Davis-Blake & Uzzi,

1993; Pfeffer & Baron, 1988). Sudden variations in demand for an organisation’s

products or services can be more efficiently met by deploying an increasing number

of temporary employees. Flexibility in work schedules and autonomy can also

appeal to workers in temporary employment arrangements (Feldman, Doerpinghaus

& Turnley, 1994; Gannon, 1984). Yet for some temporary workers such

employment arrangements are argued to have negative consequences, in particular

for individual well-being and work attitudes (Beard & Edwards, 1995; Sverke,

Gallagher & Hellgren, 2000). For decades studies of work and employment have

focussed primarily on those with reasonably stable prospects for full-time

employment. We therefore have limited understanding of the consequences of the

belief that one’s job is temporary. Whether temporary employment is better or worse

than more traditional permanent employment for employees remains highly uncertain

(Isaksson & Bellagh, 2002).

The purpose of this dissertation is to develop and conduct a systematic exploration of

perceived job insecurity, and what moderates its effects on individual and work

outcomes. Specifically, the first study investigates whether temporary and

permanent employees react similarly to a number of known moderators of reactions

to job insecurity. In the second study the long-term effects of job insecurity are

analyzed and other potential moderators of job insecurity reactions are examined.

This exploration begins in Chapter 2, where the job insecurity literature is reviewed.

How job insecurity is conceptualized is presented first. From an objective

perspective, job insecurity is inferred from data of short organisational tenure

(Schmidt & Svorny, 1998) or temporary job status (De Witte & Näswall, 2003). For

others, job insecurity is a subjective phenomenon, and as such, concerns the

individual’s assessment of how threatening a job situation might be (Dekker &

Schaufeli, 1995; Greenhalgh, 1983a; Greenhalgh & Rosenblatt, 1984).

Ways of assessing job insecurity range from single- and multi-item uni-dimensional

scales to a number of multi-dimensional scales. Some of the multi-dimensional

approaches assess separately the job loss risk and the importance of the

3

consequences of job loss (e.g., Ashford, Lee & Bobko, 1989; Borg & Elizur, 1992).

Other researchers combine subjective and objective measures of job insecurity (e.g.,

Büssing, 1999; Dekker & Schaufeli, 1995; Orpen, 1993a). The review argues that

assessing job insecurity as a probability of job loss, rather than the alternate methods

discussed, has empirical advantage. Chapter 2 argues that perceived job insecurity is

a function of what an individual believes is an acceptable risk of job loss given their

individual circumstances.

A comprehensive model is developed suggesting several likely dispositional

characteristics that contribute to an employee’s calculation of their perceived

likelihood of retaining their job for as long as they desire. A perceived lack of

control towards a job threat is considered by some (e.g., Barling & Kelloway, 1996;

Dekker & Schaufeli, 1995; Greenhalgh & Rosenblatt, 1984; Jacobson, 1991) to be

the core aspect of perceived job insecurity. Therefore, three control aspects are

argued to moderate how employees react to job insecurity: choice in temporary job

status, employability and subjective job dependency. Two sources of social support,

from supervisors and work colleagues and from family and friends are also included

in the proposed model. The outcomes proposed in the model include: psychological

well-being, job satisfaction, affective and continuance commitment, contextual

performance, turnover intentions, and intention to change job status. The Chapter

concludes with hypotheses for study one.

Since temporary job status is viewed as a moderator of job insecurity in the proposed

model, the purpose of Chapter 3 is to review previous approaches to the study of

temporary employees. The Chapter begins by providing details of the nature of

temporary employment. Given that temporary workers have different employment

conditions than employees in permanent positions, there is some debate as to how

effective extant theories, based on traditional forms of employment, might be.

Research in this area generally has produced a lack of consistent findings. The

review shows that at times there has been an overlap with the literature on part-time

employment. A possible reason for the mixed, and sometimes even contradictory,

results is that employee preferences for temporary work are not always considered.

4

Evidence is presented to show that some people freely choose temporary work whilst

others believe they are forced into such working arrangements through a lack of

employment alternatives. This variation in preference for temporary work is argued

to have a critical role for how temporaries interpret their working conditions, and

also to affect various work attitudes. The review shows that many aspects of

temporary work are unpredictable or uncertain. This discussion leads to the

conclusion that little is known about how job insecurity perceptions influence

temporary workers. One view is that job insecurity is particularly high for

temporaries (e.g., Beard & Edwards). Others argue that having multiple contracts

with a number of organizations might create less job insecurity for temporaries

(Harris & Greising, 1998). And a third view is that temporaries expect job insecurity

(e.g., Jacobson & Harltey, 1991) and therefore their reactions to job insecurity are

less troublesome than that endured by permanent workers. The Chapter concludes

by posing two research questions: Does perceived job insecurity influence the work

outcomes and psychological well-being of permanent and temporary workers to the

same extent? And to what extent does perceived choice in job status influence

employee reactions to perceived job insecurity?

Chapter 4 presents the research methodology for study one, providing details of the

sample, and the procedures measures used. To minimize any potential confounding

effects of contextual differences and to enable comparisons of work attitudes and

behaviours across job status groups, data were collected within a single industry: the

Tertiary Education sector. Variations in job characteristics were also contained by

sampling from a narrow band of job roles: low to medium level non-academic

positions. A questionnaire was administered at two organisations. Measures

previously validated in other research were used wherever possible in assessing the

study variables.

Chapter 5 presents the results of study one. The Chapter begins with statistical

comparisons to assess whether the samples differed significantly on any variable.

Descriptive statistics are then presented of the pooled sample from both research

sites. Results of the hypotheses tests are then shown. Chapter 6 provides a

discussion of the study’s findings. Age, internal locus of control and external locus

of control were found to explain significant variations in job insecurity perceptions.

5

Contrary to predictions, temporaries and permanents did not differ in their levels of

job insecurity or employability. Even so, some support was found for the proposed

model, showing that temporaries and permanents react differently to job insecurity.

The Chapter concludes by suggesting that job insecurity can be viewed as an

assessment of the breach between voluntary and involuntary turnover decisions. To

that end, another potential moderator of the relationships between job insecurity and

work attitudes and behaviour – job embeddedness – is proposed.

Chapter 7 begins with a discussion of the longitudinal effects of job insecurity. Next

the job embeddedness literature is reviewed. As a predictor of voluntary turnover

decisions, it is argued that job embeddedness might moderator relationships between

job insecurity and work outcomes. The Chapter concludes with the research model

proposed together with study 2’s hypotheses.

Chapter 8 presents the research methodology for study two. Approximately half of

study one’s participants volunteered to be contacted for the follow-up study.

Attrition and incomplete responses reduced the sample size to one hundred and

sixteen participants. Chapter 9 presents the results of this study. A primary purpose

of study two was to investigate the long term effects of job insecurity. The findings

showed that job insecurity was stable, as were its negative associations with the work

outcomes, over time. Only continuance commitment was predicted by Time 1 job

insecurity, such that the more likely an employee perceived that job loss was

probable the more continuance commitment the employee felt one year later.. The

second aim of study two was to examine the potential moderator effects of job

embeddedness in the relationship between job insecurity and the outcomes. An

exploratory factor analysis of the job embeddedness measure is reported to explain

why a number of items were dropped from the measure’s subscales.

Chapter 10 provides a discussion of study two’s findings. Findings from the

longitudinal data show that, once prior levels of the work outcomes were accounted

for, job insecurity was a significant predictor of continuance commitment. Even so,

few studies have examined the long term effects of job insecurity and fewer still have

controlled for prior levels of outcome variables (Sverke, Hellgren & Näswall, 2002).

The findings however show that job insecurity can have detrimental effects on

6

employee work attitudes even in contexts where no immediate job threat exists,

consistent with other research (De Witte, 1999; Klandermans & Van Vuuren, 1999).

Only weak support was found for the moderating effects of job embeddedness.

Findings indicated that the adverse effects of job insecurity were exacerbated when

employees perceived their organisation-related sacrifices to be great, lessening both

their affective commitment and contextual performance.

The dissertation concludes with Chapter 11 providing a discussion of the theoretical

and practical implication of the research findings. The Chapter ends with

suggestions for future research on the issues raised by the findings.

7

Chapter 2: Job insecurity

Over the past two decades of increasing corporate restructuring and downsizing

(Gowing, Kraft & Quick, 1998) job insecurity has become a permanent feature of the

work environment (De Meuse et al., 2001; Greenhalgh & Rosenblatt, 1984; Hartley,

Jacobson, Klandermans & Van Vuuren, 1991; Roskies & Louis-Guerin, 1990). Yet

it was not until the late 1990s that much academic literature was published in the

field (De Witte & Näswall, 2003). This Chapter provides a review of the theoretical

and empirical literature on job insecurity. The conceptualisation of job insecurity is

discussed first followed by measurement issues, including both objective and

subjective perspectives. A model guiding the current research is developed that

considers job insecurity’s correlates, moderators, and consequences.

Conceptualizing job insecurity

From the macro perspective job insecurity is studied through comparisons in

different labour markets. Of key concern is whether workers face a higher risk of

redundancy and unemployment, or that there is more instability occurring in specific

labour markets. An underlying assumption of this view is that job security equates

with the length of time employees remain in their jobs, those with longer tenure are

perceived to possess a lower risk of unemployment (Green et al., 2000; Robinson,

2000). Data on employment tenure thus are used as proxies for examining job

security (Auer & Cazes, 2000). As such, tenure studies examine retention rates – the

likelihood that workers with a given level of tenure can continue working for their

current employers (Schmidt & Svorny, 1998). Short employee tenure or high

turnover rates are seen therefore as an indicator of job insecurity (Robinson, 2000).

Yet, since at an aggregate level average employment tenure is determined by both

voluntary and involuntary turnover, such a conceptualization describes job stability

rather than security (Auer & Cazes, 2000). Additionally De Ruyter and Burgess

(2000) suggest that job security needs to be considered in terms of the nature of the

employment contract (permanent or temporary); and the degree of protection an

employee has from arbitrary dismissal by their employer. Whilst the macro

8

perspective provides a way of examining prevailing trends in job stability and

security, it does not help us understand how individuals are affected by job

insecurity.

For job insecurity scholars who investigate at the individual level of analysis, the

question of whether job insecurity is an objective or a subjective phenomenon is an

issue of some debate. Objective conditions promoting job insecurity include

economic recession, organisational restructures, mergers, new technologies and

increased ‘externalisation’ of the workforce (Jacobson & Hartley, 1991). Yet

objective stressors may only lead to the potential of a stress reaction (Frese & Zapf,

1988; Leventhal & Tomarken, 1995), leaving perceptions of objective situations to

be more predictive of stress outcomes than the objective situation alone (Elsass &

Veiga, 1997). These perceptions of objective situations are termed subjective job

insecurity. Thus regardless of the objective threat, for instance a plant closure, those

who measure subjective job insecurity consider the individual’s assessment of how

threatening the situation is (Dekker & Schaufeli, 1995; Greenhalgh, 1983a;

Greenhalgh & Rosenblatt, 1984).

Take for example, a group of employees similar in their skills, organisational tenure,

job roles and performance levels informed that ‘some jobs must go’. Irrespective of

the objective similarities in each individual’s situation, such employees are likely to

differ in other aspects of their lives, thereby affecting how threatening the job loss

situation is individually interpreted. Included in these other aspects are individual

variations in personal characteristics such as, previous bouts of unemployment

(Kinnunen & Nätti, 1994), differences in the need for money (Kasl & Cobb, 1970),

and self-esteem (Hui & Lee, 2000) – all of which are known to produce a diversity of

reactions to job threatening situations. Research undertaken during such situations

shows that workers who face identical job threatening environments differ in their

perceptions of job insecurity (Davy, Kinicki & Scheck, 1997; Fryer & McKenna,

1987; Mohr, 2000; Van Vuuren, Klandermans, Jacobson, & Hartley, 1991b). Indeed

job insecurity feelings rather than the situation of the organisation per se, are known

to impact on workers’ health, attitudes, and behaviour (De Witte, 1999; Klandermans

& Van Vuuren, 1999; O'Quin & LoTempio, 1998; Roskies & Louis-Guerin, 1990).

Equally, even in circumstances where employees have life-time contracts protected

9

by legislation (Alnajjar, 1996); tenure systems (Matthews & Weaver, 1996); and a

high demand for their services in tight labour markets (Mwamwenda, 1998),

employees report varying levels of perceived job insecurity. Collectively then, these

findings provide compelling evidence that employees vary in their assessment of job

threats and thus it is job insecurity perceptions, even in the absence of an overt job

threat, that influence employee health, attitudes, and behaviour. To understand why

this is the case, the theoretical foundations of the experience of job insecurity are

now explained.

One theoretical approach used to examine job insecurity is the ‘coping with stress’

framework (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984) since losing one’s job is likely to be stressful.

Such an approach is based upon the concept of cognitive appraisal. During the

appraisal process the individual evaluates the personal relevance of the situation

(primary appraisal) and assesses the match between their coping resources and the

demands of the situation (secondary appraisal). Both individual characteristics as

well as the nature of environmental cues are involved in the evaluation process and

together lead to the identification of potential threats. Not all individuals perceive an

objectively similar situation as equally threatening or challenging; and the

occurrence of psychological stress relies upon the individual’s evaluation of a

situation as threatening (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Individuals react differently to

the same circumstances (Kahn, 1981), and evaluate situations based on their unique

expectations, values, and prior experiences (Diener et al., 1999). Stress thus is not a

property of the person or the environment, but rather a particular relationship

between the person and the environment (Folkman, 1984). Threatened employment

situations that go unnoticed therefore, are not perceived as stressors and thus have no

psychological impact (Spector, 1998). Job insecurity as a subjective variable then,

represents a more theoretically inclusive construct as it includes both objective

environmental cues regarding job threats and also the job incumbent’s expectations

regarding retaining their job.

Drawing upon Lazarus and Folkman’s framework, Greenhalgh and Rosenblatt

(1984) provide a theory-based perspective of job insecurity. Job insecurity is

conceptualized as ‘powerlessness to maintain desired continuity in a threatened job

situation’ (Greenhalgh & Rosenblatt, 1984, p. 438). Both features of the job, such as

10

loss of autonomy, and loss of the entire job are included in their notion of ‘a

threatened job situation’. According to their model, job insecurity consists of two

basic dimensions: the severity of the threat to one's job and the extent of

powerlessness to counteract that threat. The relationship between the two

dimensions is argued to be multiplicative in that if either of the two factors is

insignificant, the extent of perceived job insecurity is also insignificant (Greenhalgh

& Rosenblatt, 1984). Thus employees who either perceive no threat to their jobs or

who feel capable of resisting such threats are presumed to feel no job insecurity

(Ashford et al., 1989; Jacobson, 1991).

Person-environment (P-E) fit theory also aids our understanding of job insecurity. A

basic assumption of that theory is that individuals vary in their needs and abilities

just as jobs vary in their incentives and demands (French et al., 1982). Two basic

forms of fit are theorized, one involving the correspondence between employee

desires and job supplies, and another involving the correspondence between

employee abilities and job demands (Edwards, 1991; Edwards, Caplan & Harrison,

1998). P-E fit also takes an interactionist stance suggesting that attitudes, behaviour,

and other individual-level outcomes result not from the person or environment

separately, but rather from the relationship between the two (Edwards, 1996).

Accordingly, where there is a poor fit or perceived mismatch between a person’s

values, desires, or goals and their environment stress manifests; and mental and

physical well-being are reduced (French et al., 1982). Following this logic, if an

individual’s desire for a secure job is unsatisfied by their employing organisation

then there is a job security mismatch. Should supplies of job security increase

toward the desired level however, well-being improves. Improvement is achieved as

insufficient job security leads to an intolerable level of uncertainty, resolving that

uncertainty reduces anxiety and improves health (Edwards & Rothbard, 1999;

Kuhnert & Palmer, 1991; Roskies & Louis-Geurin, 1990).

One source of job insecurity-related anxiety is explained by role theory. Roles

consist of behaviours that are characteristic of a set of persons within a context

(Biddle, 1979). Role identities provide individuals with an internal framework

within which develops a sense of meaning, purpose, and self-esteem (Reitzes &

Mutran, 1994; Thoits, 1991). Role strains however, can prompt stress (Pearlin,

11

1983). Whereas job losers experience some role clarity such as, claiming welfare

benefits and applying for jobs, the role of the job insecure is not institutionalized,

with no specific privileges or responsibilities connected with it (Jacobson, 1991 &

1995). For those individuals experiencing job insecurity the employment role with

its regular routines is under threat and there are no explicit role behaviours to guide

these workers as to how to respond to that threat (Bargal, Back & Ariav, 1992; De

Witte & Näswall, 2003). Such affected employees instead are expected to continue

working as normal and this may add to the experienced stress (Nolan, Wichert &

Burchell, 2000). Insecure employees might of course pre-emptively begin job-

seeking activities in anticipation of unemployment. Role tension may however occur

if these job-seeking behaviours, acceptable in unemployment situations, conflict with

the responsibilities of employment role behaviours (Jacobson, 1991).

It appears therefore that job insecurity can be stressful. Sources of that stress already

discussed are environmental uncertainty; discrepancies between the desired level of

job security and the amount perceived to be provided by employers; and the

likelihood of role conflict or lack of role clarity. As noted earlier, during the

appraisal process individuals evaluate not only their stress-producing environment

but also their coping resources. Stress research reveals that individual coping

resources or control-enhancing responses differ based on whether or not individuals

perceive they can alter or exert control over a threatening situation (Gatchel, 1980;

Greenberger & Strasser, 1991; Spector, 1986; Sutton & Kahn, 1987). Experimental

research consistently shows the positive effects of control for most individuals who

face threatening events (Ganster & Fusilier, 1989; Shapiro, Schwartz & Astin, 1996).

The control however, must be over the specific job stressor. For instance, having

autonomy over one’s work schedule will not reduce the stress of a job threat; rather

having alternative attractive job offers in hand may lessen the impact (Spector,

1998). How control issues relate to job insecurity are now addressed.

Lack of control to counteract a job loss threat is proposed as a facet of the job

insecurity construct (Greenhalgh & Rosenblatt, 1984). A sense of powerlessness,

according to their model, is said to exacerbate the experienced threat. This perceived

lack of control towards the job threat is considered by some (e.g., Barling &

Kelloway, 1996; Dekker & Schaufeli, 1995; Greenhalgh & Rosenblatt, 1984;

12

Jacobson, 1991) to be the core aspect of perceived job insecurity. The other facet of

job insecurity is the severity of the job threat and depends on the scope and

importance of the potential loss and the subjective probability of the loss happening

(Greenhalgh & Rosenblatt, 1984). Jacobson (1991, p. 34) however, has challenged

that powerlessness is conceptually distinct from the subjective probability of job loss.

He argues that ‘powerlessness can be incorporated as part of the probability of the

loss, since powerlessness to resist the threat makes the loss more likely’.

Jacobson (1991) explains his position using his “Job at Risk” (JAR) model

(Jacobson, 1985 cited in Hartley & Klandermans, 1986), which is expressed in

expectancy theory terms – “Value X Expectancy”. Specifically, the seriousness of

the consequences of job loss (“perceived severity”) and the individual’s belief in the

likelihood of job termination (“perceived susceptibility”) are theorized to constitute a

worker’s felt job insecurity. In Jacobson’s model powerlessness is viewed as a factor

subsumed within “perceived susceptibility”, rather than as a separate component of

job insecurity as Greenhalgh and Rosenblatt (1984) suggest. For Jacobson (1991)

therefore, powerlessness does not need to be assessed separately. Accordingly, if

individuals believe they have some control over the likelihood of their job

termination, then their job insecurity is less than those who lack such control

(Jacobson, 1991), regardless of the “perceived severity” of their respective situations.

An example of how a sense of powerlessness can influence the likelihood of the

perceived threat illustrates support for Jacobson's (1991) argument. Namely, even

under the worst conditions where company closure is imminent, some employees

may believe they are not entirely powerless. It is likely that some employees may

still believe that if they work harder, voluntarily reduce their wages, or buy the firm’s

products, they may be able to influence or reverse the fortunes of their employer. In

such an example employees therefore believe they can reduce their employment

susceptibility by reducing the probability of company closure, albeit in their own

small way.

Another example, where the source of the job threat is less straightforward than

company closure demonstrates support for Jacobson’s (1991) view that “perceived

susceptibility” incorporates a sense of control element. For instance, during

13

organisational downsizing, whilst workers may not believe they can influence the

likelihood of such events, it is likely that the extent to which individual employees

feel powerless to counteract the job threat can vary. Some may view themselves

protected by situational and/or personal factors. Described as ‘perceived

safeguards’, personal characteristics, such as work experience or personal output, and

positional attributes, such as importance of one’s job or department, are

demonstrated to influence how secure employees feel about their jobs (Van Vuuren

et al., 1991b). In such events therefore, some employees may believe they can

reduce their probability of job termination through their personal safeguards.

The examples provided illustrate support for Jacobson’s (1991) position that the

likelihood of job loss or the probability of the loss of job features incorporates a

worker’s sense of powerlessness to resist the job threat. The current research extends

Jacobson’s argument to propose that an individual’s evaluation of the seriousness of

the consequences of job loss (“perceived severity”) also subsumes an individual’s

sense of powerlessness to lessen the enormity of a job threat.

To illustrate, it is likely that employees have differential capabilities in lessening the

seriousness of the consequences of job loss. Some workers may more readily adjust

their financial commitments by reducing their expenditure. Increasing other sources

of income as well is an option some might pursue to reduce the threatened financial

hardship of job loss. Just as financial vulnerability is likely to vary from worker to

worker, so to is an individual’s beliefs in how much control they have in adjusting

their financial needs. Another way to lessen the financial hardship of job loss is to

limit the time spent searching for a new position. Some may already possess

education, skills and work experience in a variety of occupations. Others might

believe they can more effortlessly acquire new skills and knowledge to enhance their

opportunities for labour market alternatives. In doing so, such workers are likely to

believe they will spend less time unemployed. Thus an individual’s perception of the

extent of control they possess over such factors (adjusting financial resources and

employability) is likely to influence their appraisal of the severity of the costs of job

loss. So, just as Greenhalgh and Rosenblatt (1984) suggest, a sense of powerlessness

can influence severity perceptions as well as probability assessments of job

threatening situations.

14

In summary, Greenhalgh and Rosenblatt (1984) view powerlessness as a

multiplicative factor of job insecurity, with the scope and importance of the potential

loss and the subjective probability of the loss being the other factors (severity of the

loss). Jacobson (1991) in contrast, asserts that powerlessness is subsumed within the

subjective probability of job loss only. Where the current research differs from these

two perspectives is that powerlessness can be linked both to the probability of job

loss and to the level of severity of that loss, just as Greenhalgh and Rosenblatt (1984)

assert, yet including powerlessness into the conceptualization of job insecurity as a

single construct does not adequately reflect the complexity of the job insecurity.

The current project takes the view that when conceptualizing a construct it is

important to distinguish between scope of the construct itself and variables that may

moderate relationships between the construct and variables of interest. Any

information regarding interactive effects between aspects of powerlessness and

perceived job insecurity therefore, are lost if those control aspects are subsumed

within the construct itself. Collapsing the profusion of potential information

concerning the probability of job loss and the scope and importance of the potential

loss and powerlessness into one construct, as Greenhalgh and Rosenblatt (1984)

suggest, is likely to result in an unnecessary loss of valuable information. Thus the

current research confines the conceptualization of job insecurity to the match

between desire for job continuity and expectations of job continuity. Therefore, it is

only when aspirations for job continuity outstrip expectations that the job will remain

available that job insecurity is perceived. Operationalizing different aspects of

control as variables separate from job insecurity conceputalized this way allows us to

examine potential differences between these various “powerlessness” aspects of job

insecurity and to observe their influence on employee reactions.

Later in this Chapter it is shown that high job insecurity detrimentally affects

employees. It is therefore important to understand what might intensify or lessen

such reactions. Two aspects of control considered to be relevant to job threatened

employees (financial resources and employability) were discussed briefly in this

section. Closer examination of these moderators of job insecurity effects is provided

15

later in this Chapter with other potential moderators proposed in the next Chapter.

Before exploring these issues however, how job insecurity is measured is discussed.

Measuring subjective job insecurity

As stated in the preceding section, researchers that measure perceived job insecurity

consider the extent of an individual’s psychological assessment of their job situation

as threatening or non-threatening (Dekker & Schaufeli, 1995; Greenhalgh, 1983;

Greenhalgh & Rosenblatt, 1984). A situation that makes some individuals feel

insecure about the continuity of their job may make others feel entirely secure (Van

Vuuren et al., 1991b). Researchers in the area note however, that there is little

consistency in the measurement methods employed to assess perceptions of job

insecurity (e.g., Ashford et al., 1989; Hartley et al., 1991). Measurement scales

range from single- and multi-item uni-dimensional scales to a number of multi-

dimensional scales, the best known of which is Ashford et al.’s Job Insecurity Scale

(1989).

The least complex approach involves uni-dimensional measures. For instance,

satisfaction with job security is used in some studies as a method of examining the

role of job insecurity as a work stressor (e.g., Arnold & Feldman, 1982; Borg &

Elizur, 1992 [Study 1]; Yousef, 1998). Typically, respondents indicate on a multi-

point scale, from ‘very dissatisfied’ to ‘very satisfied’, their level of satisfaction with

the job security provided by their organisation.

Another uni-dimensional approach to the measurement of perceived job insecurity

captures the likelihood of job loss (Borg, Kristensen & Burr, 2000; De Jong, Bosma,

Peter & Siegrist, 2000; De Witte, 1999; Heaney et al., 1994; Hui & Lee, 2000;

Jacobson, 1991; Kinnunen & Nätti, 1994; Lord & Hartley, 1998). Alternately,

threats of job uncertainty (Maurier & Northcott, 2000; Probst, 2000) or concern for

the consequences of job loss (Barling & Kelloway, 1996) are assessed. A typical

item is: “How large, in your opinion, is the probability that you will become

unemployed in the near future?” Possible responses are: “very large”, “rather large”,

“neither large, nor small”, “rather small”, or “very small or impossible”. Or

16

respondents are asked to indicate: “What are the chances you will be fired or laid off

within the next year?” with a percentage - ranging from 0% chance to 100% chance –

providing the level of job security. Included in this approach are studies that

measure both the probability of the loss of both job features, as well as the total job,

in line with Greenhalgh and Rosenblatt’s (1984) conceptualization of perceived job

insecurity (Lim, 1996; Roskies & Louis-Guerin, 1990; Roskies, Louis-Guerin &

Fournier, 1993). At times this global approach to understanding job insecurity is

applied within a context of organisational downsizing or change, in which feelings of

job insecurity are considered as the first stage in the transition to job loss (Ferrie,

1997; Hallier & Lyon, 1996; Joelson & Wahlquist, 1987).

Multi-item scales not only combine the types of single items described above, but

also present and future aspects of the current job. Commonly adapted from the “Job

Future Ambiguity” scale (Caplan, Cobb, French, Van Harrison & Pinneau, 1975),

respondents are asked to say how uncertain their job is on a multi-point scale,

ranging from “extremely uncertain” to “'extremely certain”'. For instance, Davy,

Kinicki and Scheck (1991) asked: “How certain are you of the opportunities for

promotion and advancement which will exist in the next few years with this

company”; and “How certain are you about what your future career picture looks like

with this company”.

Some multi-dimensional scales attempt to assess separately the level of risk of job

loss (a ‘cognitive’ component) and the extent to which this is a source of anxiety (an

‘affective’ component) (Ashford et al., 1989; Borg & Elizur, 1992) and short-term

and long-term insecurity (Roskies & Louis-Guerin, 1990). Borg and Elizur (1992)

for example, designed a scale for their series of studies based on affective (‘fear’)

and cognitive (‘worry’) dimensions of job insecurity. Likewise, Hellgren, Sverke

and Isaksson (1999) assessed perceived job insecurity along two dimensions,

quantitative (loss of job continuity) and qualitative (threats to the quality of the

employment relationship).

Some researchers (Tivendell & Bourbonnais, 2000; Wilson, Larson & Stone, 1993)

operationalize job insecurity in terms of the organisation’s vulnerability to economic

threat and the employee’s vulnerability to job loss. Still others combine subjective

17

and objective measures of job insecurity. Objective measures take the form of

managers’ ratings of job redundancies (Orpen, 1993a), high and low risk companies

(Roskies et al., 1993), or high and low risk worksites (Büssing, 1999; Dekker &

Schaufeli, 1995; O'Quin & LoTempio, 1998). None of these approaches however,

encapsulate all the theoretical elements of job insecurity that Greenhalgh and

Rosenblatt (1984) proposed.

As noted earlier, according to Greenhalgh and Rosenblatt (1984), job insecurity

consists of two basic dimensions: the severity of the threat to one’s job and the extent

of powerlessness one has to counteract that threat. The relationship between the two

dimensions is argued to be multiplicative – if either of the two factors is insignificant

– no job insecurity is felt. The following equation illustrates this view of perceived

job insecurity:

Perceived job insecurity = Perceived severity of the threat X Perceived

powerlessness to resist threat.

According to the model (Greenhalgh & Rosenblatt, 1984), the severity aspect of job

insecurity is contingent upon the scope and importance of the potential loss, as well

as the subjective probability of the threat occurring. Scope of the threat includes

whether the loss is temporary or permanent; whether the loss involves the entire job

or features of the job only; and whether transfer or demotion is involved. Severity

also is argued to relate to the availability of work alternatives. Labour market

conditions, the presence of social security schemes, and alternate sources of income

are also likely to impact on the severity of job loss (Klandermans & VanVuuren,

1999).

The second aspect of perceived severity, as conceptualized by Greenhalgh and

Rosenblatt (1984), is the subjective probability of job loss, an assessment of the job

situation based on environmental cues. The probability calculation depends on the

nature and number of sources of the threat, some of which are technological change,

organisational decline, and restructuring (Greenhalgh & Rosenblatt, 1984). Based on

this theoretical formulation Ashford et al. (1989) suggest that the components of

perceived severity combine as follows:

18

[ Σ (importance of job feature X likelihood of losing job feature) + Σ (importance of

possible negative change to total job X likelihood of change) ] X [ perceived

powerlessness to resist threat].

Accordingly, Ashford et al. (1989) developed a measure that included five subscales

(57 items) to assess perceived job insecurity. The scale assesses 17 job features,

such as geographic location or promotional opportunities, as well as 10 negative job

changes, such as permanent lay-off or demotion. For each job feature and each job

change both the importance and likelihood of loss are measured. The subjective

powerlessness to resist the threat is also assessed with the following items.

Respondents indicate the extent to which they agree or disagree with these

statements:

1. ‘I have enough power in this organization to control events that might affect

my job.

2. In this organization, I can prevent negative things from affecting my work

situation.

3. I understand this organization well enough to be able to control things that

affect me’ (Ashford et al., 1989, p. 829).

Only one study (Reisel & Banai, 2002) to date has used Ashford et al.’s (1989) entire

57 item scale to assess perceived job insecurity, concluding that the measure did not

demonstrate psychometric advantages over a global measure of job insecurity. In

practice administering such a long scale in organisational settings is often

problematic (Borg and Elizur, 1992). Abridged versions of the scale though, are

used in a number of studies. For instance, Hellgren and Sverke (2001) used a ten-

item version designed to reflect an overall concern for the future existence of the

current job. Mauno and Kinnunen (2002) assessed only one dimension of the scale,

the probability of various changes to the total job. As well, the subscales concerning

the importance and likelihood of both job features and the total job are used by some

(Rosenblatt & Ruvio, 1996; Rosenblatt, Talmus & Ruvio, 1999; Westman, Etzion &

Danon, 2001), and adapted by others (Ameen, Jackson, Pasewark & Strawser, 1995).

Studies that have included Ashford et al.'s (1989) ‘powerlessness’ scale in the

19

abridged version include Kinnunen, Mauno, Nätti and Happonen (1999 & 2000);

Mauno and Kinnunen (1999); and Orpen (1993 & 1994).

Few studies have made comparisons between different measures of perceived job

insecurity. Apart from Reisel and Banai’s study (2002) mentioned above, Kinnunen

et al.’s study (1999) is another rare exception. Job insecurity perceptions were

assessed by a global measure, assessing concern for job loss and certainty about job

retention in three organisations over a 3 year period. An abridged version of Ashford

et al.’s (1989) scale was also used, examining the interrelationships among the three

subscales, importance, probability, and powerlessness. The global and probability

scale demonstrated strong and significant correlations with each other at each of the

three measurement points. The probability scale though, was the only scale that was

explained by objective economic changes, such that the more negative the objective

economic situation at Time 1, the higher the probability of negative job changes at

Time 3. The powerlessness scale was not predicted by any of the predictors

examined, which included objective economic changes, age, dependence on current

job, self-esteem, and organisational communication.

Based on their findings, Kinnunen et al. (1999) conclude that the probability scale

showed the best construct validity when extant results were taken into account. In

particular, the importance scale acted as a separate construct from the other scales

(global, probability, and powerlessness). For instance, while no gender differences

were found on the probability scale, women rated the possible changes (e.g, wage

cut, lay-off, dismissal) as more important than did men. Also, unlike the other

scales, the importance of possible changes decreased as time went on. Only the

probability scale evaluated at Time 1 predicted job exhaustion at Time 2, which in

turn increased sickness absences at Time 3. In addition, as the powerlessness scale

was related to neither the predictors, nor outcomes assessed, Kinnunen et al. (1999)

recommend that its use as a measure of job insecurity is not substantiated.

For different reasons a similar conclusion is drawn with regard to the efficacy of

Ashford et al.’s (1989) powerlessness subscale elsewhere. With a sample of Israeli

schoolteachers, Rosenblatt and Ruvio (1996) assessed, and then omitted the

20

powerlessness subscale from their job insecurity measure. Three explanations are

provided for the subscale’s removal. Powerlessness did not correlate with either of

the probability or importance subscales or the overall calculated job insecurity scale

itself. The meaning of powerlessness was thought to differ in the sample from

Ashford et al.’s (1989) sample due to the strong political power of the teachers’

union. Jacobson’s (1991) argument, that powerlessness is incorporated within the

probability dimension of job insecurity, was also employed to support the decision to

omit the subscale.

Recollect that Greenhalgh and Rosenblatt's model (1984) and Ashford et al.’s (1989)

measure combine multiplicatively both the severity of the job threat (scope and

importance of the potential loss and the subjective probability of the loss occurring)

as well as the extent of powerlessness to counteract the threat. As discussed in the

preceding section, rather than combining these two factors (‘severity’ and

‘powerlessness’) Jacobson (1991) favours keeping the constituent elements separate.

In that way, he explains, the relationships between the model’s elements can be

theoretically and empirically explored (Jacobson, 1991). To support that view

Jacobson (1991) notes that Ashford et al.’s powerlessness subscale (1989) is almost

as good as the overall combined measurement developed in that study. Indeed, of

the eight antecedents and outcomes for which significant correlation coefficients

were obtained, in five instances it is the powerlessness variables that demonstrate the

strongest relationships (Ashford et al., 1989). Further empirical evidence, unrelated

to the study of job insecurity, adds weight to Jacobson’s reasoning (1991).

In Gilbert and Ivanecvich’s (1999) study of commitment in two organisational

settings, Ashford et al.’s powerlessness scale (1989) was used to assess respondent

ability to influence their job situation. In both organisations, powerlessness was

significantly negatively associated with organisational commitment (i.e., -.48, p <

.001; -.47, p < .001). Ashford et al. (1989) reported a similarly strong relationship:

the correlation between their powerlessness scale and organisational commitment

was -.40 (p < .01). Taken together, such results appear to support recommendations

that powerlessness be omitted from the measurement of job insecurity (Jacobson,

1991; Kinnunen et al., 1999; Reisel & Banai, 2002; Rosenblatt & Ruvio, 1996).

21

As outlined in the preceding section, there is strong support for the positive effects of

control for most individuals who face threatening events (e.g., Ganster & Fusilier,

1989; Shapiro et al., 1996). Importantly, to have influence, the control must be over

the specific job stressor (Spector, 1998), in this case the job-threatening situation and

its potential job loss consequence. Yet Ashford et al.’s (1989) powerlessness scale

items (listed earlier) are non-specific, thereby enabling Gilbert and Ivanecvich (1999)

to use the scale to assess respondent ability to influence their job situation. Given

that none of the individual items of the scale relate specifically to control over job

threats or the impact of such threats, as recommended by Spector (1998), it appears

likely that Ashford et al.'s (1989) measurement of powerlessness is too general,

thereby possibly explaining the anomalies described above regarding inclusion of

powerlessness in the measurement of job insecurity.

As detailed earlier, it is the current study’s belief that including powerlessness into

the conceptualization of job insecurity as a single construct does not adequately

reflect the complexity of the job insecurity. As well, it is proposed here that Ashford

et al.’s (1989) measurement of powerlessness is too general for use in examining job

insecurity. Rather, the current research measures job insecurity as the perceived

probability of job loss, and also investigates the effects of different sources of

powerlessness, two of which are employability and job dependency. In that way

interactions, as suggested by Jacobson (1991) and Probst (2003), can be explored to

ascertain whether or not the various forms of control have differential effects on

outcome measures.

Not only can the concept of control relate to direct control over one’s immediate

environment but it can also extend to include the notion of potential control one may

have in the future, say over finding alternative employment (Mohr, 2000). Assuming

that responses to perceived job insecurity differ according to the causal attribution

one makes regarding the source of the job threat, employees may hold themselves (or

some personal characteristic) or organisational or environmental forces responsible

for the uncertain conditions surrounding their job situation (Klandermans et al.,

1991). For the individual employee characteristics such as age, health, effort, or

education may contribute to the probability as well as to the seriousness of the job

loss threat. For instance, an unsatisfactory attendance record due to illness may

22

target an employee for retrenchment (increasing probability) and poor health may

extend the period of ensuing unemployment (increasing the gravity of job loss).

Alternatively, undertaking work-related studies might reduce the likelihood of

retrenchment and simultaneously improve the probability of finding alternative

employment. Some employees may view some of these personal characteristics as

controllable. Conversely, others may attribute their job insecurity to uncontrollable

factors, such as age, ethnicity, or uncontrollable organisational or environmental

causes, such as poor management or worldwide recession. Before these issues of

what may (or may not) influence the gravity of job loss are explored further a

preliminary model underlying study one is presented, following by a review of the

literature on correlates of job insecurity.

23

Fig. 2-1 Preliminary research model – Study 1

Employability

Job

dependency

• locus of control • negative affect

Psychological well-being

• age • gender • educational level • tenure

Job insecurity

Job satisfaction Organisational commitment (Affective & continuance)

Contextual performance

Social Support

Turnover intentions

(Organisational & Family)

24

The preliminary model underlying study one is shown in Figure 2-1. In line with

previous research, it is expected that a number of individual and dispositional

characteristics will contribute to job insecurity perceptions. These correlates are

discussed in the next section. The preliminary model also shows that several

variables are predicted to moderate the relationships between job insecurity and

individual and work outcomes. Based on the literature, employability and job

dependency were selected as being individual characteristics over which individuals

might have a degree of control. Two sources of social support are also proposed to

influence reactions to job insecurity: organisational and family. Each of these

moderators is discussed shortly. The Chapter concludes with an examination of the

direct effects of job insecurity on individual and work outcomes.

Correlates of job insecurity

Job insecurity, as it is conceptualized in the current research, is the perceived

probability of job loss. Individual characteristics thought to influence how

vulnerable one feels with respect to the probability one’s job might be terminated

include: gender, age, marital status, education level, and organisational tenure

(Greenhalgh & Rosenblatt, 1984). Each aspect is discussed in this section followed

by personality characteristics, negative affect and locus of control, identified as

affecting perceived job insecurity.

Individual characteristics

A number of studies have tested for gender differences in job insecurity perceptions.

Rosenblatt et al. (1999) found that male teachers were more job-insecure than female

teachers, though they hypothesized the reverse. Males were concerned about the

financial aspects of their jobs, whereas females in the sample were most anxious

about undesirable changes in their work schedules and in changes to work autonomy.

Similar results are provided elsewhere. Women indicated that possible negative job

changes (e.g., wage cut, lay-off) are more important to them than they are to men;

and women also reported a higher level of powerlessness than men (Kinnunen et al.,

25

1999). Even so, a more common observation is that there are no significant

differences between the genders with respect to job insecurity perceptions (e.g., De

Witte, 1999; Elman & O’Rand, 2002; Hellgren & Sverke, 2003; King, 2000;

Kinnunen and Nätti, 1994; Kuhnert & Palmer, 1991; Mak & Mueller, 2000 & 2001;

Manski & Straub, 2000; Roskies & Louis-Guerin, 1990; Tivendell & Bourbonnais,

2000). Thus it is unclear whether men and women differ significantly in their job

insecurity perceptions.

Increased age is generally believed to make employees more vulnerable to job

displacement (Hallier & Lyon, 1996; Kuhnert & Vance, 1992; Roskies & Louis-

Guerin, 1990). Older workers tend to be less desirable to employers, hence the need

for age discrimination legislation (Greenhalgh, 1983a). Research on involuntary job

loss shows that middle-aged displaced workers, between 30 and 50 years of age,

encounter the greatest amount of psychological deterioration and financial stress

(Warr & Jackson, 1984). Evidence on how age relates to job insecurity perceptions

is mixed, however. Some researchers report no differences between age groups (e.g.,

Hellgren & Sverke, 2003; Iverson, 1996; Kinnunen & Nätti, 1994; Manski & Straub,

2000; Ruvio & Rosenblatt, 1999; Van Vuuren et al., 1991b). In contrast, Yousef

(1998) reports that satisfaction with job security increases with age, as do Kuhnert

and Vance (1992). Yet, Roskies and Louis-Guerin (1990) and Wilson et al. (1993)

provide data to show that younger workers perceive the greatest job threat. It is

therefore unclear how age contributes to job insecurity perceptions.

Living with a partner might provide a source of social support to alleviate levels of

job insecurity. Again, what little research there is examining marital status and

feelings of job insecurity provides inconsistent results. Kinnunen and Nätti (1994)

found that job insecurity was statistically unrelated to marital status, as have others

(Hellgren & Sverke, 2003; Roskies & Louis-Guerin, 1990; Ruvio & Rosenblatt,

1999). Whereas Yousef (1998) reports that married respondents are more satisfied

with their job security than are singles, Brown Johnson, Bobko and Hartenian (1992)

found the reverse effect.

Evidence concerning the impact of education level on job insecurity perceptions is

also inconclusive. Job insecurity is reported as virtually unrelated to education level

26

in a number of studies (e.g., Iverson, 1996; Kuhnert & Vance, 1992; Ruvio &

Rosenblatt, 1999; Van Vuuren et al., 1991b). Others nonetheless report more

educated workers perceive the greatest threat or dissatisfaction with their job security

(Probst, 1998; Roskies & Louis-Guerin, 1990; Yousef, 1998). Still other evidence

shows that job insecurity tends to decrease with higher levels of education (Hellgren

& Sverke, 2003; Green et al., 2000; Manski & Straub, 2000).

One view of job tenure’s connection with job insecurity feelings is that senior

employees are more vulnerable to job loss as potential targets for early retirement or

redundancies during organisational restructures. Longer tenured workers are also

thought to perceive fewer job alternatives (March & Simon, 1958) and may judge

their job skills and job search skills as obsolescent (Green et al., 2000; Greenhalgh,

1983), thereby reacting less positively to job threats than less senior employees (Hui

& Lee, 2000). Alternately, a ‘last-in/first-out’ strategy (Kanfer & Hulin, 1985) to

downsizing initiatives can make long-term employees feel more secure than shorter

tenured colleagues. Not surprisingly, tests of job insecurity differences based on job

tenure provide mixed results. For instance, some studies report that job security is

significantly correlated with tenure, such that longer-term employees report greater

job security (Brown Johnson et al., 1992; Kuhnert and Vance, 1992; Probst, 1998).

Yousef (1998) also found that satisfaction with job security increases with tenure.

Even so, the absence of a relationship between job insecurity and seniority is detailed

in a number of studies (e.g., Iverson, 1996; Roskies & Louis-Guerin, 1990; Ruvio &

Rosenblatt, 1999; Van Vuuren et al., 1991b).

In summary, it appears that the extent to which individual characteristics influence

one’s perceived vulnerability to job loss is unresolved. A possible explanation for

this situation is provided from a group of studies in Israel, Great Britain and the

Netherlands. Participants in these studies who were unconcerned about their job

security overwhelmingly referred to individual characteristics as the reasons for their

lack of concern (Van Vuuren et al., 1991a).

For example, secure workers might rationalize their lack of concern about their age

by telling themselves that their increased years and longer work experience makes

them more valuable to the firm; or perhaps their youth and vitality makes them more

27

amenable to change, thereby protecting their organisational membership. Insecure

employees, in contrast, rarely mentioned individual characteristics as a reason for

their concern (Van Vuuren et al., 1991a). The powerlessness aspects of perceived

job insecurity might explain this discrepancy. Not only do such insecure workers

blame themselves for their insecurity but, equally important, they feel there is

nothing they can do (Klandermans et al., 1991). Realizing they can do little to change

their age, an insecure worker might concern themselves more with alternate reasons

as to why they are concerned about their job security. Such findings led Van Vuuren

and her colleagues (1991b) to conclude that if employees possess some attribute they

believe to safeguard them from job loss, they use it to reason away the job threat and

so reduce their uncertainty.

Fundamental attribution error theory (Jones & Harris, 1967), where one tends to

underestimate the influence of situational factors and focuses on the role of personal

causes, may provide a possible theoretical explanation for Van Vuuren et al.’s

findings (1991b). As mentioned earlier, workers who face identical job threatening

situations can differ in their perceived job insecurity. Take, for example, two work

colleagues who possess the same individual characteristics. Assume that one of

these employees is job secure, the other insecure. According to Van Vuuren et al.’s

(1991b) logic the secure worker would credit their lack of concern to their individual

characteristics, disregarding or minimising the importance of environmental cues of

the job threat. The insecure employee, on the other hand might consider both

personal and situational attributes, concluding that external sources (such as

management policy, economics climate and so forth) provide the greater threat to

their job continuity than do their own personal characteristics. Until such issues are

resolved, to minimise the risk of confounds, the current research controls for the

individual characteristics described here.

Dispositional characteristics

Apart from demographic characteristics, dispositional characteristics related to how

job threats are interpreted are also used to explain individual variations in perceived

job insecurity (Mak & Mueller, 2000; Van Vuuren et al., 1991b). One such trait is

negative affect, reflecting an individual’s disposition to respond negatively

28

regardless of the situation (Watson, Clark & Tellegen, 1988). Some stress

researchers (Brief, Burke, George, Robinson & Webster, 1988) consider that

negative affectivity inflates the association between stressors and strain; they argue

that perceptions of job stress and impaired well-being are manifestations of a

tendency to emphasize the negative aspects of life (Schaubroeck, Ganster & Fox,

1992).

Evidence of the direct effects of negative affectivity with respect to perceived job

insecurity is mixed. Whereas Mak and Mueller (2000) found a low, but significant

positive correlation, Probst (1998) and Roskies et al. (1993) report non-significant

associations between these variables. Support for direct effects of negative

affectivity with stress outcomes, however, is more consistent. Negative affectivity

was significantly related to Hellgren et al.’s (1999) outcome variables with the size

of correlations comparable to those reported for job insecurity. Likewise, Roskies et

al. (1993) report that negative affectivity emerged as the single most important

predictor of psychological distress, even after accounting for the impact of socio-

demographic variables, perceived job insecurity and coping resources and strategies.

Taken together, these results suggest that negative affectivity is a likely confounding

variable that needs to be controlled for when investigating perceived job insecurity;

and it is in the current research.

Another dispositional characteristic is believed to explain individual variations in

perceived job insecurity. Generalized beliefs about control, which concern an

individual’s tendency to assume they can control outcomes of importance, are argued

to influence the primary appraisal of stressful situations (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984).

Experimental evidence supports the proposition that control beliefs can lessen the

stressfulness experienced (Ganster & Fusilier, 1989). Locus of control is a

personality construct originally hypothesized by Rotter (1966), reflecting the extent

to which an individual believes that environmental events are within one’s own

control, as opposed to being controlled by luck or fate. Individuals with an internal

locus of control interpret environmental events as having less influence, believing

that they have the power to counteract threats in their environment. In fact,

‘internals’ consistently report lower perceived job insecurity (Ashford et al., 1989;

Borg & Elizur, 1992; Orpen, 1994; Van Vuuren et al., 1991a). Collectively, these

29

results suggest that locus of control also is a likely confound in the measurement of

job insecurity perceptions. It is therefore measured and controlled for in the current

study.

Moderators of the effects of job insecurity

Social support

As stated earlier, reactions to job insecurity are often examined within the coping

with stress framework. The term “coping with stress” concerns the various ways

different individuals deal with stress. Social support is considered a coping resource,

usually referring to the confidant functions performed by family members, friends,

and co-workers from which individuals draw comfort when handling stressors

(Cohen & Wills, 1985). Helping relationships or social support are considered by

some (e.g., Ashford et al., 1989; Greenhalgh & Rosenblatt, 1984) as a main resource

in dealing with the stress of job insecurity enabling workers to feel less isolated

(Bargal et al., 1992) and less vulnerable to the effects of stress (Hobfoll, 1985). In

fact, social support such as requesting help from others can be argued to represent a

way of exercising control over one’s working environment (Daniels & Guppy, 1994).

Social support can provide direct effects both on the stressor and stress reactions, as

well as moderating effects between the stressor and stress reactions (Beehr, 1998;

Cobb, 1979; Cohen & Wills, 1985; Ganster, Fusilier & Mayes, 1986; Mak &

Mueller, 2000; Payne & Jones, 1995). A direct effect is suggested if social support

contributes to general well-being, independent of the level of stress (Hobfoll, 1985;

Viswesvaran, Scanchez & Fisher, 1999). That is, social support can provide

emotional comfort that reduces the effects of symptoms. After examining a selection

of studies, Payne and Jones (1995) commented that the percentage of variance shared

between social support and symptoms, such as depression and anxiety, generally lies

between zero and 4 per cent. Social support can also directly reduce the stressor.

Catalano, Rook and Dooley (1986) for example, report that job insecure workers are

more likely than secure ones to seek help through formal or informal counselling for

psychological distress. Borg and Elizur (1992) similarly observed significant

30

negative correlations between job insecurity fear and social support. Additionally,

Kinnunen and Nätti (1994) found that social support from supervisors and colleagues

had main effects on work-related outcomes, such that the more support reported, the

better the well-being at work.

As a moderating variable social support interacts between the stressor and stress

reactions such that its alleviating influence is stronger for individuals with high

levels of social support than for those with low levels of support (Ganster et al.,

1986; Hobfoll, 1985; Viswesvaran et al., 1999). Evidence supporting the moderating

effects of social support on perceived job insecurity is however mixed (Winnubst &

Schabracq, 1996). For at-work relationships, Dekker and Schaufeli (1995) found no

significant interactive effects with colleague support; and Büssing (1999) reports

relatively low moderating effects with support from supervisors and colleagues. For

non-work relationships Mak and Mueller (2000) found no moderating effects with

social support from loved-ones. Examining both work and non-work relationships

Dooley, Rook and Catalano (1987) found no significant interactive effects for social

support from either source. In contrast, supportive work relations are shown by Lim

(1996) and Mohr (2000) to significantly moderate the negative effects of job

insecurity. In sum, despite a lack of empirical consistency in social support’s role in

reducing the harmful effects of occupational stress (Beehr, 1998), evidence from

cross-sectional and longitudinal studies indicates that social support influences the

severity of stressors and the psychological experience of individuals (Payne & Jones,

1995).

Powerlessness and control As previously stated, a sense of powerlessness or lack of control is thought to

exacerbate perceived job insecurity (Greenhalgh & Rosenblatt, 1984). Factors

influencing the severity of losing one’s job contribute significantly to perceived job

insecurity (Van Vuuren et al., 1991b). A sense of personal control, Orpen (1994)

shows, is an effective moderator between perceived job insecurity and well-being.

As well, Büssing (1999) reports that control at work moderates the relationship

between objective job insecurity and strains. Other findings (Barling & Kelloway,

1996) show that at high levels of workplace control, job insecurity is unrelated to

31

either blood pressure or health. At low levels of workplace control however, job

insecurity was positively associated with both blood pressure and health.

Even though workers finding their job security needs unmet might be expected to

leave their jobs for ones offering greater security, job mobility can be constrained by

either job opportunities or dependencies (Greenhalgh, 1983b). As noted earlier,

three specific aspects of control are examined in the current project. The first control

aspect is perceived choice in job status and is discussed in the next Chapter.

Alternate work opportunities (employability) are the second aspect of control

considered. Literature involving this aspect of control is assessed now as well as

evaluating the literature concerning the third aspect of control under investigation,

namely job dependency.

Employability

The severity of threats to job security varies between different labour markets

(Burchell, 1994). A risk of job loss in times of high unemployment for instance, is

more threatening than in times of low unemployment. Perceived ease of movement

for a worker depends on the availability of jobs for which they are qualified, and

willing to accept (March & Simon, 1958). For a job-threatened worker, the greater

the number of perceived work alternatives, the greater the perceived ease of

movement. Thus, a belief that alternative job opportunities abound is likely to

minimise the severity of threats to job security. So an individual’s vulnerability to

unemployment might be influenced by their perceived capacity to find alternate

employment (Mohr, 2000). Greenhalgh and Rosenblatt (1984) propose that

occupational mobility might moderate the negative effects of job insecurity.

Accordingly, if individuals believe that they can find another, equally good, job then

they are likely to be more relaxed about their job insecurity than those with fewer job

alternatives (Frese, 1989). In the same way, Bargal et al. (1992) argue that the extent

of one’s marketable skills, one’s occupational mobility, and one’s assessment of

economic instability in the job market all influence the perceived intensity of a job

threat. Thus the risk of job loss is believed to be more threatening where the

jobholder feels less able to find a comparable job (Burchell, 1994). Empirical

evidence supports such a view.

32

In a study comparing secure and insecure workplaces, Büssing (1999) found

“alternatives in the labour market” acted as a coping resource for those at the

insecure site with respect to strains and psychosomatic complaints. As well,

employees who believe they have a strong position in the labour market feel more

secure about their jobs than do employees who feel more vulnerable (Van Vuuren et

al., 1991b). Even the potential to improve one’s chances in the labour market can

influence the perceived job insecurity. As long as employees see their job insecurity

as related to individual characteristics they believe are controllable, they can feel

there is a way out. They can decide to enroll in re-training programmes, to increase

their productivity or to improve their work experience. They can look for, and even

apply for, other jobs inside or outside the organisation (Klandermans, Van Vuuren &

Jacobson, 1991).

Vance and Kuhnert (1988 cited in Kuhnert & Palmer, 1991) report similar results in

a study measuring “employment security”, the belief that a comparable job can be

easily found elsewhere if one’s present job is lost. Specifically, workers with high

levels of job insecurity and high levels of employment insecurity reported greater

adjustment difficulties than did employees who felt job insecure but employment

secure. Moreover, employees who felt secure in their jobs reported greater well-

being regardless of their level of employment security (Vance & Kuhnert, 1988).

Collectively then, these studies tend to suggest an individual’s perceived prospects in

the labour market, their “employability”, affect their reactions to their job insecurity.

Job dependency

Another aspect of control suggested here specific to the situation of job insecurity is

job dependency, the economic necessity for work. Evidence supporting the

argument that the economic rewards of work serve central functions in people’s lives

are considerable (Brief & Aldag, 1989; George & Brief, 1990; Shaw & Gupta, 2001).

Workers’ economic dependency on their jobs nevertheless, varies (Doran, Stone,

Brief & George, 1991). To the degree that a person has high financial demands, they

may be particularly sensitive to the economic hardship of job loss. Given that some

individuals are responsible for a higher proportion of their family income than others,

33

those with a strong economic dependency on a job are likely to react more strongly

to perceived job threats (Brockner, 1988; Greenhalgh & Rosenblatt, 1984; Leana &

Feldman, 1990). In other words, financial vulnerability exacerbates the severity of

job loss (Van Vuuren et al., 1991b).

The extent of one’s financial vulnerability includes financial needs or requirements

as well as financial resources, assets and other income sources. Just as some workers

may depend on their job-related income for basic necessities such as food and

shelter, yet others might use their earned income predominantly for luxury purchases

(Doran et al., 1991). Also in the event of a job loss a rich person is likely to have

more resources than a less affluent one for obtaining a new job and for weathering a

term of unemployment (Thoits, 1991). Employees who believe they have a weak

financial position feel more insecure about their jobs than do employees who feel

their financial state is fairly strong (Van Vuuren et al., 1991b). Consequently, for

those workers with little economic pressure to remain in a particular job you might

expect a job loss threat to be consequentially less severe.

Indeed Brief and Aldag (1989) report that employees who are major breadwinners

tend to be the most negatively influenced by job insecurity. Brett, Cron and Slocum

(1995) suggest however that the critical role of economic dependency arises, not

from its direct influence on worker outcomes, but from its moderating effects on

relations between employee attitudes and outcomes. In one study (Brockner, Grover,

Reed & De Witt, 1992) data show that for employees with a low economic need to

work, there is virtually no relationship between job insecurity and work effort. For

those with a high economic need to work though, there is a sharp inverted-U

relationship between job insecurity and work effort. Within this job dependent group

the greatest work effort was reported by those experiencing a moderate level of job

insecurity, not high enough to produce helplessness or low enough to promote

complacent attitudes (Brockner et al., 1992). Little evidence though is available as to

whether job dependency moderates relations between perceived job insecurity and

individual work-related outcomes such as organisational commitment and job

satisfaction.

34

The preceding discussion involves research on a number of previously tested

moderators of reactions to job insecurity. Such research uses samples of employees

in traditional long term employment relationships. In the next Chapter it is argued

that job status (whether in a permanent or temporary job) influences how employees

respond to the effects of these moderators. Hypothesis concerning the moderating

effects of social support, employability, and job dependency on reactions to job

insecurity are presented at the conclusion of the next Chapter. Literature examining

the direct effects of job insecurity on such work outcomes is reviewed in the next

section.

Consequences of job insecurity

Generally, the literature shows that job insecurity generates stress reactions (De

Witte, 1999; Landsbergis, 1988). Research on the impact of job insecurity on

employees can be grouped in to three reaction categories: physiological responses,

psychological well-being, and work-related outcomes. Empirical evidence for each

group is described below.

Physiological responses

A number of studies measure the physical effects of perceived job insecurity.

Findings include positive links between job insecurity and psychosomatic

complaints, such as sleeplessness and headaches (Maurier & Northcott, 2000; Van

Vuuren et al., 1991a); and physiological aliments, such as lower back pain (Borg et

al. 2000) and blood pressure problems (Barling & Kelloway, 1996). Longitudinal

studies provide more support for job insecurity-related physical symptoms. For

instance, Heaney et al. (1994) found that a chronic high level of job insecurity was

predictive of physical symptoms, such as shortness of breath, ringing in the ears, and

skin irritations. Ferrie and her colleagues conducted a series of studies (1997, 1998a,

1998b) tracking the health status of over 10, 000 civil servants concluded that threats

to employment security have adverse health consequences that are unexplained by

health-related behaviours, such exercise patterns, alcohol consumption or smoking

35

habits. Collectively, these studies suggest that job insecurity is detrimental to an

employee’s health.

Psychological well-being

Intuitively, the threat of unemployment is unlikely, for most people, to be conducive

to psychological good health. For the unemployed a major worry is the inability to

plan for the future (Fryer & McKenna, 1987). Prolonged uncertainty is also known

to be very burdensome in the anticipatory phase of unemployment (Joelson &

Wahlquist, 1987). This is when job insecurity perceptions are forming. In fact, the

anticipation of unemployment can be as bad for psychological health as

unemployment itself (Kasl & Cobb, 1982). Even so, job insecurity may be only one

of a wide range of stressors a worker has to deal with. Though job insecurity might

not be independent of other job stressors, Frese (1985) shows that job insecurity does

have an independent effect on psychosomatic complaints.

As well, De Witte (1999) demonstrates that job insecurity has significant effects on

psychological distress after controlling for the impact of background characteristics,

high workload demands, and the extent of skill utilization, concluding that

experiencing job insecurity can be as psychologically distressing as experiencing

short-term unemployment. More recently Maurier and Northcott (2000) provide data

to suggest that job uncertainty (anticipated job loss or displacement) has independent

effects on depression separate from the effects of other stressful working conditions,

such as insufficient resources, and conflicting demands. It appears therefore, that job

insecurity perceptions have an autonomous and adverse influence on mental health.

Not surprisingly then, job insecurity is consistently associated with reduced levels of

psychological well-being. Dooley et al. (1987) in a survey of 4,000 principal wage

earners, show that perceived job insecurity was the single most important predictor

of scores on a checklist of psychological symptoms. So too do Kuhnert and Palmer

(1991) conclude that perceived job insecurity was the strongest predictor of

employee health in their sample. Specific psychological reactions to job insecurity

include anxiety, psychological distress, and depression (Mohr, 2000; Roskies et al.,

1993). Other studies using mental health measures found job insecure employees as

36

reporting more negative emotional feelings such as sadness, nervousness, and fear

(Van Vuuren et al., 1991b). Dekker and Schaufeli (1995) similarly found that job

insecurity is associated with a deterioration of psychological health leading to

psychological distress and burnout. Psychological mood also is positively associated

with self-reported job insecurity (Barling & Kelloway, 1996; Burke, 1998). Meta-

analysis data (Sverke et al., 2002) show a moderate corrected correlation (rc = -.237)

between job insecurity and mental health. Taken together, these findings support the

notion that the job-insecure are not as psychologically healthy as their job secure

counterparts. The impact of job insecurity is not limited to physical and

psychological well-being though. A number of studies have investigated links

between perceived job insecurity and work-related outcomes; and are discussed in

the next section.

Work-related outcomes Job satisfaction

The idea that job insecure employees might report less job satisfaction than their

more secure counterparts is fairly appealing. Satisfaction with one’s job is the extent

to which an individual has a positive affective orientation towards employment with

their organisation (Vroom, 1964). Given that employees have implicit expectations

about their job security (Rousseau, 1989; Shore & Tetrick, 1994), then a threat to the

continuity of a desired job represents a potential violation of the psychological

contract with the employee psychologically withdrawing and responding by reducing

their job satisfaction (Davy et al., 1991; Klandermans et al., 1991). Indeed such

responses are consistently reported and are now discussed.

Significant negative correlations between job insecurity perceptions and job

satisfaction are documented in a number of studies. Studies measuring job insecurity

as a single item, generally assessing the likelihood of job loss, find that the less

secure are less satisfied (Arnold & Feldman, 1982; Borg & Elizur, 1992). As well,

studies using more complex measures of job insecurity report similar findings (e.g.,

Ameen et al., 1995; Ashford et al., 1989; Davy et al., 1991; O'Quin & LoTempio,

1998). Correspondingly, other research that assesses satisfaction with job security

details data showing significant positive correlations with job satisfaction (Allen,

37

Freeman, Russell, Reizenstein & Rentz, 2001; Oldham et al., 1986; Yousef, 1998).

A recent meta-analysis (Sverke et al., 2002) of 50 independent samples found a

strong corrected correlation (rc = -.407) between these variables. Longitudinal

studies furthermore conclude that, for the job-insecure, the decreased job satisfaction

remains fairly stable over time (Dekker & Schaufeli, 1995; Heaney et al., 1994;

Hellgren et al., 1999).

Oganisational commitment

Whereas job satisfaction reflects an individual’s response to either the job or to

certain aspects of the job, organisational commitment concerns a general affective

response to the organisation as a whole (Mowday, Steers & Porter, 1979). One

aspect of this commitment is characterised by a strong desire to maintain

organisational membership (Reichers, 1986) which reduces the likelihood the

employee will leave the organisation voluntarily (Allen & Meyer, 1996). Employees

who perceive their jobs at risk lose faith in the dependability of their organisation,

thus reducing their attachment to, and loyalty for, their employer (Ashford et al.,

1989). Any perceived threat, therefore, to the preservation of organisational

membership is likely to influence the extent to which an employee remains

committed to their organisation. Job insecurity then, is related to decrements in

organisational commitment. Again the literature is consistent in producing such

findings.

Paralleling the job satisfaction and job insecurity findings, there is extensive

empirical support for the view that feelings of job insecurity are negatively related to

organisational commitment (e.g., Adkins, Werbel & Farh, 2001; Ameen et al., 1995;

Arnold & Feldman, 1982; Ashford et al., 1989; Blau, 1994; Hui & Lee, 2000; King,

2000; Rosenblatt & Ruvio, 1996; Rosenblatt et al., 1999; Van Vuuren et al., 1991a).

Not only does an absence of job security reduce organisational commitment, but also

there is support also for the idea that the presence of job security has positive effects

on organisational commitment. For instance, significant positive correlations

between job security and organisational commitment are reported (e.g., Davy et al.,

1997; Iverson & Roy, 1994; Kuhnert & Vance, 1992; Lord & Hartley, 1998).

Satisfaction with job security and organisational commitment have likewise been

38

positively linked (Yousef, 1998). Interview data collected over a 12-month period

amongst long-tenured managers under threat of redundancy also illustrate how work

attachments and commitment alter adversely for those in the redundancy process

(Hallier & Lyon, 1996). Such evidence tends to suggest that job insecurity and job

security, with respect to organisational commitment at least, operate empirically in

functional antagonism, sitting at opposite ends of a continuum. Collectively then,

these results suggest strongly that when an employee feels their job security is

threatened they do not develop a high level of organisational commitment.

Turnover intentions

As with any stressor, job insecurity might induce a withdrawal response – a way to

avoid the stress altogether (Ashford et al., 1989). As an individual becomes more

uncertain about retaining their current job, they are likely to look for alternate, more

secure, employment opportunities (Greenhalgh, 1983b; Greenhalgh & Rosenblatt,

1984). Supporting such a view, King (2000) found that the higher the level of job

insecurity, the higher the level of job search intensity, where job search intensity is

the degree to which one engages in job search behaviour. And job search behaviour

is known to be positively associated with subsequent turnover (Blau, 1994).

Perceived job insecurity is consistently found to be positively associated with

employee’s turnover intentions (Ameen, et al., 1995; Ashford et al., 1989; Barling &

Kelloway, 1996; Dekker & Schaufeli, 1995; Greenhalgh, 1982; O'Quin &

LoTempio, 1998; Rosenblatt & Ruvio, 1996; Rosenblatt et al., 1999; Ruvio &

Rosenblatt, 1999; Tivendell & Bourbonnais, 2000) and actual turnover (Arnold &

Feldman, 1982; Blau, 1994). Likewise, there is also evidence of positive

relationships between job security and intentions to stay with an organisation

(Iverson & Roy, 1994). Consequently, it appears that those with high levels of job

insecurity are more prone to withdraw from their organisations.

Effort, performance and extra-role performance

For employees, job insecurity directly impinges on the calculation of the relationship

between their own effort and rewards received from their employer (Greenhalgh &

Sutton, 1991): why work hard if you believe you will lose your job? Some job

insecurity scholars predict that insecure individuals will exert less effort toward

39

organisational goals, thereby restoring the balance of the effort/reward exchange

(Greenhalgh & Sutton, 1991; Greenhalgh & Rosenblatt, 1984; Hershey, 1972). Such

a view is popular among many observers who contend that insecure employees are

less enthusiastic about their work and less willing to expend time and energy

(Roskies & Louis-Guerin, 1990). In fact, Greenhalgh (1982) provides data showing

job security positively correlates with self-reported productivity. Similar results are

reported by Armstrong-Stassen (1993) for production workers; by King (2000) for

white-collar workers; and by Roskies and Louis-Guerin (1990) for managers. Ruvio

and Rosenblatt (1999), Rosenblatt and Ruvio (1996), and Rosenblatt et al. (1999) too

found insecure schoolteachers reported decreased performance. Others however,

found no such relationship (Ashford et al., 1989; Hershey, 1972; O’Quin &

LoTempio, 1998; Orpen, 1993b; Sverke et al., 2002; Tivendell & Bourbonnais,

2000).

One explanation for these mixed results stems from the view that an insecure

employee might work harder to maximise their chances of retaining their current

employment (Nolan et al., 2000; Greenhalgh & Sutton, 1991). Employee motives

for increased effort might include attempts to stave off the possibility of a layoff to

enhance the firm’s profitability or to demonstrate their worthiness to remain, even if

others must be laid off (King, 2000). For instance, Bargal et al. (1992) observed that

insecure tyre factory workers coped by working harder than usual, in the hope that

their individual efforts might be rewarded with job continuity.

A more complex non-linear relationship between job insecurity and performance is

possible, however. Eysenck and Calvo (1992) suggest that anxiety, such as

experienced from job insecurity, can either (a) drain a worker’s memory resources

thereby distracting the worker from job tasks leading to decreased performance or (b)

increase their cognitive arousal, thereby acting as a motivational force that results in

improved performance. Abramis (1994) goes further, to indicate that at low to

moderate levels, job stressors are motivating while at higher levels they are de-

motivating. Though his data (Abramis, 1994) did not produce curvilinear effects for

job insecurity on performance, it is worth noting that job insecurity was found to

have negative correlations with all the performance measures.

40

Also suggesting an inverted-U-shaped relationship between the job insecurity and

performance, Brockner et al. (1992) predicted that moderate levels of job insecurity,

as compared to low or high levels, should lead layoff survivors to the greatest level

of work effort. According to Brockner and his colleagues (1992) at low levels of job

insecurity layoff survivors are likely to be unmotivated due to complacency; whilst at

high levels survivors might unmotivated due to helplessness. The results supported

the study’s predictions. As the study was a simple cross-sectional design however, it

cannot be ruled out that rather than job insecurity leading to poor performance, poor

performers may be well aware that their poor performance puts them at risk of job

loss, hence their high insecurity. In sum therefore, the effect that job insecurity has

on job performance is unclear, as there is no consensus as to whether the relationship

is positive, negative or non-linear (Nolan et al., 2000).

While research on in-role job performance and job insecurity is inconclusive, even

less is known about how perceived job insecurity influences extra-role performance.

Often termed organisational citizenship behaviours (OCBs) (Smith, Organ & Near,

1983) or pro-social behaviours (O’Reilly & Chatman, 1986), such activities are

constructive and discretionary, thereby not being included in an employee’s formal

job description. Such activities provide a number of benefits for organisations -

enhancing co-worker and managerial productivity, freeing up resources for more

productive purposes, and helping to coordinate activities both within and across work

groups (Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1997). Since these behaviours are not required by

the job no formal sanctions can be applied to those who fail to engage in them

(Borman & Motowidlo, 1993; Van Dyne & Ang, 1998). Given, therefore, that extra-

role behaviour has no explicit implications for job retention (Allen & Meyer, 1996),

the arguments used to explain the link between job insecurity and in-role

performance may not apply.

According to Organ (1977) extra-role performance arises from an employee’s job

satisfaction, as satisfied employees engage in OCBs out of gratitude to the

organisation or a desire to reciprocate their feelings of satisfaction. Support for such

a perspective is provided by Organ and Ryan’s meta-analysis (1995), where job

satisfaction is reported as more related to measures of OCBs than to in-role

performance. MacKenzie, Podsakoff and Aherne (1998) provide evidence to suggest

41

that in-role performance acts as an antecedent of job satisfaction and organisational

commitment, whereas extra-role performance is a consequence of these attitudes. To

the extent then, that satisfaction and commitment motivate employees to perform

extra-role behaviours, it is likely that insecure employees, being less satisfied and

committed than their more secure counterparts, might be reluctant to engage in extra-

role behaviours such as spontaneous acts of cooperation. To date, no direct empirical

test of such a proposition exists. Indirect support is provided from two sources,

however, as is now discussed.

First, a secure job is an organizational inducement (March & Simon, 1958). Thus if

one’s job security is perceived to decrease it might be seen as a violation of the

psychological contract (Greenhalgh, 1983a). Turnley and Feldman (2000) found that

the degree of psychological contract violation, measured by a number of employment

relationship dimensions including job security, is negatively related to employees’

willingness to perform OCBs. Second, in a study of white-collar workers King

(2000) found that those with higher levels of job insecurity tended to report lower

levels of citizenship behaviour. Although the empirical evidence is scant, it appears,

then, that extra-role performance and perceived job insecurity are negatively related.

To conclude, the preceding literature review shows that perceived job insecurity has

negative consequences for employees in terms of their physiological and

psychological well-being, as well as their work-related outcomes. Previous

approaches to the study of job insecurity and measurement methods were discussed.

A preliminary research model (Figure 2-1) was proposed that shows job insecurity as

subjectively experienced. That experience can have negative consequences for

employees’ psychological well-being and work attitudes. These outcomes moreover

can be alleviated or exacerbated by some individual differences in economic and

social circumstances. In the next Chapter the temporary employment literature is

reviewed and some variables are added to the proposed research model. Before the

Chapter concludes, a number of hypotheses are developed that are tested in study

one.

42

Chapter 3: Temporary employment

In the preceding Chapter job insecurity perceptions were shown to be an important

determinant of employee work outcomes. A preliminary model was proposed (Fig.

2-1) underlying the research for study one. Included in this model were a number of

variables (viz., employability, job dependency, and social support) that might

moderate relations between perceived job insecurity and individual and work

outcomes. In this Chapter two more potential moderators are added to the proposed

research model. Given that an increasing proportion of the workforce is in

temporary employment situations, the new variables of interest are: temporary job

status, and choice in job status. Each of these variables is discussed shortly

following a review of the temporary employment literature.

Introduction

Historically, the majority of white-collar workers understood that in exchange for

loyalty and adequate job performance their employer rewarded them with

promotional opportunities and virtually lifetime job security. Increasingly however,

significant changes are taking place to challenge this traditional view of employment

relationships (Abraham, 1990; Cappelli, 1995; Mirvis & Hall, 1994; Pfeffer &

Baron, 1988). One such change concerns the increasing use of temporary workers.

This Chapter provides a review of the theoretical and empirical literature concerning

temporary employment workers. The size and growth of temporary employment is

discussed first, followed by a brief overview of typical working conditions. A

number of organisational behaviour approaches to understanding temporary

employment from the worker’s perspective are then presented. Some approaches

presented provide results that are inconclusive and sometimes contradictory. Worker

preferences and whether temporaries freely choose temporary employment are

discussed in relation to their work attitudes and behaviours. What role job insecurity

perceptions play in our understanding of temporary workers is also discussed, before

concluding the Chapter with the proposed hypotheses for study one.

43

The changing nature of work

An expanding proportion of the workforce has moved from full-time, permanent

employment towards contingent or temporary employment arrangements (Brewster

& Mayne, 1997; Dale & Bamford, 1988; Wooden, 1999). Reasons why

organisations are altering their labour employment strategies are varied. For

instance, economic demands such as increased global competition (Benson, 1998;

Martens, Nijhuis, Van Boxtel & Knotterus, 1999); labour cost containment (Davis-

Blake & Uzzi, 1993; Feldman & Doerpinghaus, 1992a; Pfeffer & Baron, 1988; Von

Hippel, Mangum, Greenberger, Heneman & Skoglind, 1997); pressures for greater

flexibility (Burgess, 1996; Hunter, McGregor, MacInnes & Sproull, 1993); and to act

as a buffer for permanent staff to absorb downturns in demand (Abraham, 1990;

Pfeffer, 1994) are examples of such explanations. Social changes such as increases

in the participation rates of women (Allan, Brosnan & Walsh, 1998; Brooks, 1985)

and greater post-secondary education participation (Austen, 1995; Romeyn, 1992)

are also suggested to have encouraged the demand for casual jobs. In addition,

political initiatives, such as labour market deregulation (De Ruyter & Burgess, 2000;

Hartmann & Patrickson, 2000), and technological changes (Bennis & Slater, 1968;

Burgess, 1996; Christensen, 1987; Purcell & Purcell, 1999) are held to have

contributed to the rise in non-permanent employment opportunities.

How widespread the phenomenon of temporary employment is remains a contentious

issue. Differences in the operational definitions of what constitutes temporary or

contingent work have created measurement problems. For example, contingent work

arrangement classifications include direct-hire or temporary firm workers,

consultants, subcontracted and leased workers (McLean Parks et al., 1998). Others

(Brooks, 1985; Hipple, 1998; Weller, Cussen & Webber, 1999) describe different

forms of casual work in terms of whether a position is short term or continuing, and

whether it is offered on a full-time or part-time basis (Weller et al., 1999).

Recognising that temporary workers do not necessarily have only short-term

employment relationships, the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) defines casual

jobs as those that do not pay annual or sick leave benefits (ABS Catalogue 6203.0,

July 1999). For some, however, essentially any employment arrangement that differs

from the traditional standard of a full-time wage and salary job is labelled as

44

contingent (Polivka, 1996). Thus, with such a variety of definitions ascertaining

accurate descriptive statistics of the proportion of workers with contingent jobs has

proven difficult.

By 1994 it is estimated that approximately one-quarter of all Australian employees

were employed under casual work arrangements based on the ABS definition

(Burgess & Campbell, 1998). Apart from Spain, Australia has the highest level of

short-term jobs than all other OECD1 countries (ACIRRT2, 1999; Murtough &

Waite, 2000). Temporary employment, in Australia, is estimated to have risen from

17.6 per cent in 1988 to 24 percent in 1994 (Burgess, 1996). Another estimate is that

the proportion of all employed persons who are temporaries grew from 13 per cent in

1984 to 22 per cent in 1999 (Murtough & Waite, 2000). About 90 per cent of

temporary jobs in Australia are on a part-time basis (Burgess, 1996), while around

two-thirds of part-time jobs are temporary (ABS Catalogue 6310.0, August 1998).

Moreover, from 1988 to 1998, the number of Australian workers in temporary

employment grew by 69 per cent compared to a growth of only 7 per cent for other

types of employees (ABS Catalogue 6203.0, July 1999). The number of workers in

Australia that find themselves working in temporary jobs therefore, has been

growing. Similar evidence is found in other countries (e.g., Appelbaum 1992;

Brewster & Mayne, 1997; Kalleberg et al., 2000; Purcell & Purcell, 1999).

Nature of temporary employment

In Australia the common law distinction between permanent employees (either full-

time or part-time) and temporaries lies in the period of notice required properly to

terminate the employment contract (Brooks, 1985). With no ongoing contract of

employment of an unspecified duration, temporary workers have no legal entitlement

to be paid annual leave or sick leave; prior notification of retrenchment; or either

reinstatement or damages for arbitrary dismissal3 (Romeyn, 1992). To ameliorate the

position of temporary workers for non-entitlement to these considerations, as well as 1 Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development 2 Australian Centre for Industrial Relations Research and Training 3 Exceptions do apply e.g., regular casual work with the same employer for at least 12 months has entitled some casual contract employees the same unfair dismissal protection as permanents (Murtough & Waite, 2000)

45

for the irregularity and impermanency of temporary work, Industrial Tribunals in

Australia attach a pay 'loading' to compensate such employees when they perform the

same work as permanents (Brooks, 1985; Dawkins & Norris, 1987). Calculated as a

fixed percentage of the daily or hourly rate paid to permanents, the 'loading' is added

to the temporary employee's wage (Brooks, 1985). The casual loading rate varies

from 10 to 50 per cent depending on the award, with the average loading being

around 20 per cent (Dawkins & Norris, 1987; Romeyn, 1992). Notwithstanding, on

average, temporary or casual employees earn less than their permanent counterparts

as is now explained.

Despite the pay loading, full-time casual mean weekly earnings are 10 per cent less

than those of full-time permanents; and part-time casuals earn only 62 per cent of

mean weekly earnings of their permanent co-workers (ABS Catalogue 6310.0,

August 1998). Casual workers tend to work fewer hours than other employees

(Dawkins & Norris, 1987) and about one-third of casual part-timers prefer to work

more hours (ABS Catalogue 6203.0, July 1999). Whilst working fewer hours

contributes to the reduced earnings of temporaries, other factors also affect their

earning capacity. For example, an oversupply of temporary labour stemming from

high unemployment levels; and labour market compositional changes, such as more

casuals working in low skilled, and thus low paying occupations, may also explain

the lower earnings of casual workers (Simpson, 1994). In addition 62 per cent of

temporaries have variable earnings from month-to-month compared to 34 per cent of

all employed persons (ABS Catalogue 6359.0, August 1998). Reduced earning

capacity and income variability, however, are not the only concerns for temporary

employees.

Given that temporary employees typically have but short-term or intermittent

associations with their employers, there are few strong business reasons why a

company might invest in training such workers (Tregaskis, 1997). Payment of the

casual loading acts as a disincentive for employers to provide training for temporary

employees as it costs less to hire trained staff, who are already fully functional and

whose training costs have been paid elsewhere, rather than hire an untrained worker

(Dawkins & Norris, 1987). Employers, moreover, benefit less from investing in

training temporaries as these workers, on average, spend fewer hours in the

46

workplace (Dale & Bamford, 1988; Simpson, 1994, Tilly, 1992a) resulting in lower

rates of return from training investments (Austen, 1995). Lack of permanence also

contributes to fewer opportunities to receive workplace training; and the workers

themselves may feel less motivated to participate if they are unable to recognise the

advantages of doing so (Tisdall, 1999). Consistent with such reasoning, research

shows that organisations are less likely to train temporary workers than their

permanent counterparts (Davis-Blake & Uzzi, 1993; Pfeffer & Baron, 1988).

Briefly then, the nature of temporary work varies considerably from permanent work

on a number of characteristics. Aspects highlighted here are compensation, the

extent of income constancy and the level of employer-sponsored training. Given

such differences in employment conditions, it seems reasonable to question if our

understanding of employee attitudes and behaviour based on theories and empirical

evidence derived the work experiences of permanent employees is relevant to

temporary workers (cf., Harris & Greising, 1998; McClurg, 1999; Pfeffer & Baron,

1988; Von Hippel, Greenberger, Heneman, Mangum, & Skoglind, 2000). Just as

some researchers speculate whether the work attitudes, motivations, and behaviours

of part-timers are different from those held by full-timers, so too is there a growing

body of literature that investigates how the temporary work experience influences job

outcomes for temporary workers (e.g., Dubinsky & Skinner, 1984; Feldman, 1990,

1995). Given that temporary workers, in terms of hours of employment have

variable, and sometimes minimal, exposure to the usual organisational structural and

social forces associated with permanent jobs, it is debatable how relevant extant

theories apply to these newer forms of employment relationships (Barling &

Gallagher, 1996; Benson, 1998).

Reviewed shortly are research findings on the job attitudes and behaviours of

temporary employees. To date research on the topic has mainly generated mixed

results. The literature review that follows argues that differences in job insecurity

perceptions can help explain differences in work outcomes both within, and between,

groups of permanent and temporary employees. The primary purpose of study one is

to examine whether job insecurity, as a job stressor, acts in the same way for

temporary employees as it does for those in permanent work. Little research

investigates how temporary employees experience job insecurity. Given that the

47

number of people in temporary work is increasing, understanding how job insecurity

is perceived by, and affects them is important since a lack of job security is

consistently shown to adversely affect work outcomes and well-being amongst

permanent workers. Developing a better understanding of what drives and alleviates

temporary employees’ job insecurity perceptions, therefore, is important so that

organisations can maximise the effectiveness of such workers. Strategies can then be

developed to lessen the adverse effects of perceived job insecurity for the temporary

employees themselves.

Organisational Behaviour (OB) approaches to understanding temporary employment

Research investigating temporary employment is sometimes undertaken from the

employers’ viewpoint (e.g., Hunter & MacInnes, 1991; Hunter et al., 1993; Mangum,

Mayall & Nelson, 1985; McGregor & Sproull, 1991). However, the focus of the

current research concerns the temporary employees’ perspective. Despite the growth

in numbers of the temporary labour force, little systematic research examines

employee reactions to temporary work (Beard & Edwards, 1995; Feldman et al.,

1995; Krausz, 2000; Lowry, Simon & Kimberley, 2002; Sverke et al., 2000).

Overall, much of the existing research is not guided by strong theory (Hulin &

Glomb, 1999). For the most part studies on the subject provide seemingly

contradictory findings. To illustrate these inconsistencies, a review of literature

employing seven approaches to the study of temporary workers is presented.

Approaches include: ‘frame of reference’, partial inclusion, psychological contract

theory, demographic, work status congruence, and volition. First though, the review

begins with a collection of studies not theoretically driven.

Atheoretical approach

In the absence of any specific theoretical justification or consistent empirical work,

an early approach to the study of temporary workers hypothesized that job status did

not affect work outcomes. Such an approach sought to document empirical

differences across employment groups. Typically employee attitudes, behaviours

48

and/or performance were measured and comparisons made between permanent (full-

time and sometimes part-time) and temporary employees. As might be expected, the

findings of this atheoretical research are inconsistent across studies.

For instance, Hom (1979) examined job satisfaction (in pattern and level) amongst

retail part-time sales workers, some employed steadily and continuously, and others

hired seasonally and intermittently. Regarding the pattern of job satisfaction, the

data showed that as the number of weekly work hours fell, part-timers, whether

steady or seasonal, became more satisfied with the quantity of work but less satisfied

with the nature of their job duties. Even though this pattern of job satisfaction was

unrelated to the type of part-time employment, the level of job satisfaction was.

Seasonal and steady part-timers differed significantly in their extent of two facets of

job satisfaction. Seasonal part-timers reported less satisfaction with their co-workers

and their job security than did steady part-timers. Once demographic dissimilarities

were statistically controlled, though, differences in the satisfaction levels between

steady and seasonal part-timers disappeared. Hom (1979) concluded therefore, that

satisfaction differences had less to do with the extent of the workers’ peripherality,

defined in terms of hours worked and regularity of employment, and more to do with

variations in the workers’ demographic profiles.

Alternate findings are also reported in the literature, however. Also surveying retail

sales personnel, full-timers, and regularly and irregularly scheduled part-timers,

Jacofsky and Peters (1987) compared job satisfaction levels between the three

employment status groups. Like Hom’s sample (1987), the groups differed

significantly on demographic characteristics. After controlling for these

demographic differences however, significant satisfaction differences remained

across the employment status groups. Notably, irregularly scheduled part-timers

indicated they were more satisfied with their work, pay, and co-workers than either

regularly scheduled part-timers or full-time employees (Jackofsky & Peters, 1987).

These effects were attributed to a possible reduction in schedule conflict for those

who worked with flexible schedules. Irregularly scheduled part-timers were able it

was concluded, to achieve a better ‘fit’ between work and non-work activities.

While the conclusions drawn from both these studies (Hom, 1979; Jackofsky &

Peters, 1987) are at odds with each other, both studies suggest that irregularly

49

scheduled part-time retail sales personnel are demographically different from their

full-time or regularly scheduled part-time counterparts. Reasons why this might be

the case are discussed later in the ‘demographic approach’ section. But first, an

approach is presented that takes into account the differences in employment

conditions temporary workers experience as compared to permanent employees.

‘Frame of reference’ approach

One theoretical framework used to interpret both differences and similarities in

attitudes and behaviours between temporary and permanent employees is the ‘frame

of reference’ approach. Each individual’s frame of reference is determined by past

experiences and future expectations (Darden, McKee & Hampton, 1993). Rather

than to guide systematic research, frame of reference theories are usually applied

post hoc to support explanations of unanticipated results in work outcome

comparisons of part-time and full-time workers (Barling & Gallagher, 1996).

Rotchford and Roberts (1982), for example, suggest that variances in the attitudes

and behaviours of part- and full-timers might be affected by filtering employment

experiences through divergent frames of reference. For instance, in one of their

studies (Roberts, Glick & Rotchford, 1982) that compares job satisfaction and role

conflict levels, differences between part- and full-timers are attributed to regional

acculturation.

Another study (Logan, O’Reilly & Roberts, 1973), showing only minor differences

in job satisfaction levels between part- and full-timers, determined that each group

defined job satisfaction differently. Specifically, full-timers included their

satisfaction with promotions as part of their overall satisfaction. Part-time workers

excluded it however (Logan et al., 1973). Since promotional prospects generally are

unavailable to them, part-timers might not perceive such opportunities as an integral

part of their overall satisfaction (Rotchford & Roberts, 1982). Thus the frame of

reference view posits that the differential job circumstances of job classifications,

say, part-time relative to full-time, or temporary relative to permanent, mean that the

employment groups might respond differently to their work situations.

50

In essence, the frame of reference approach suggests that individuals evaluate their

situations based upon how they compare to some other self-selected comparison

group (Barling & Gallagher, 1996; Tansky, Gallagher & Wetzel, 1997). Just as

differences exist between part-and full-time workers, such as in the number of hours

worked and promotional opportunities, as noted earlier, the employment conditions

and rewards received by permanent and temporary workers also differ. Because the

nature of temporary work can vary considerably from permanent work, temporary

and permanent workers therefore may not have the same frame of reference (Darden

et al., 1993; Eberhardt & Shani, 1984; Feldman, 1990; Miller & Terborg, 1979).

Why differences in frames of reference might be important in the explanation of

different work reactions across employment groups is because asymmetric situations

can be troublesome and are likely to produce feelings of inequity (Berger, 1979).

Thus differences in employment conditions permit the potential for feelings of

inequity. Not only do the employment conditions of temporary and permanent

workers differ, but also, at times temporary employees are treated differently to, and

sometimes less favourably than, their permanent co-workers (Feldman, 1995; Geary,

1992; Tucker, 1993). To understand individual reactions to feelings of inequity in

different employment relationships, researchers draw upon comparison theories.

Comparison theories (e.g., social comparison theory, equity theory, relative

deprivation) are used to explain individual reactions to a wide variety of work

experiences. Such experiences include working conditions and social aspects of the

job (Telly, French & Scott, 1971), job complexity and security (Oldham, Kulik,

Ambrose, Stepina & Brand, 1986), wages (Austin, McGinn & Susmilch, 1980;

Martin & Peterson, 1987) and workplace status (Greenberg, 1988). Results

consistently support the notion that individuals prefer a fair or equitable exchange

relationship and such a preference influences behaviour towards the exchange

relationship (Carrell & Dittrich, 1978). To understand how inequity feelings

develop, how equity theory operates is explained.

According to equity theory (Adams, 1965), an individual enters into a relationship

based on the concept of a reciprocal agreement. In an employment relationship,

individuals assess their jobs by examining their inputs (e.g., skill, effort, loyalty) and

51

their corresponding outputs (e.g., pay, non-pecuniary benefits, security). That

input/output relationship is then compared to relationships perceived in the jobs of

‘referent others’ (Adams, 1963). In the case of a temporary worker then, they might

choose other temporaries inside or outside their current organisation. Alternately,

they might compare their work conditions with those of their permanent co-workers,

or even with previous jobs they might have held. Depending on the particular

referent chosen, perceived inequity may or may not develop.

Who temporary workers might choose as referents is guided by research that

suggests that proximity is an important determinant in the choice of referent others

(Kulik & Ambrose, 1992). Given that temporary employees are generally hired to

fill in gaps in the permanent workforce (Pfeffer & Baron, 1988) and are thus likely to

work along aside other permanent employees, some observers (Beard & Edwards,

1995; Tansky et al., 1997) speculate that a permanent worker is likely to be a

temporary worker’s referent other. Furthermore, given that temporary workers

generally receive fewer tangible and intangible rewards even when performing the

same tasks/job roles as their permanent colleagues (Feldman, 1995; Van Dyne &

Ang, 1998), such discrepancies are likely to generate feelings of inequity in

temporary workers (Beard & Edwards, 1995). Thus, based on the frame of reference

view and reasoned logic, it might be expected that, given our propensity for equitable

relationships, temporary employees might perceive themselves as disadvantaged

relative to their permanent counterparts in the workplace (Beard & Edwards, 1995;

Feldman, 1990). Some evidence supports such as view and is now discussed.

In a study that examined social comparison processes, Sloboda (1999) reports that

temporary workers chose permanent workers as a referent group, rather than their

fellow temporary counterparts. Temporaries indicated perceived inequities in the

two dimensions of comparison measured: the amount of recognition received, and

perceived control over their terms and conditions of employment. Low negative

correlations with job satisfaction and affective organisational commitment were

reported for inequities in recognition. For the degree of control, moderate

correlations with job satisfaction and involvement and affective organisational

commitment were found (Sloboda, 1999). Other research provides support for the

view that temporary workers perceive inequities, and such inequities are linked to

52

negative work outcomes. Feldman (1995), for instance, informs us that even though

for some workers the trade-off between higher wages (paid to permanents) and

flexible hours (received by temporaries) seems fair, many temporary workers believe

the wage differential is inequitable. As well Tansky et al. (1997) report that part-

time workers who perceive that their employer treats them as well as full-timers are

more organisationally committed. Even so, the utility of the frame of reference

approach in differentially predicting work outcomes for different employment groups

is limited for at least two methodological reasons.

First, according to Goodman (1977), identical organisational conditions can be

responded to differently, depending on the particular referent other selected for

comparison. So in order for consistent patterns of attitude and behaviour differences

to emerge, say amongst temporary workers, it is important that as a group they

repeatedly choose the same referents. Designating a referent other does not resolve

the situation, since group-primed individuals are known to be more sensitive to

collective inequity (Smith, Spears & Hamstra, 1999). Regrettably comparison

theories offer only general guidelines for predicting referent choice (Kulik &

Ambrose, 1992). Festinger (1954), for example, suggests that individuals prefer to

select referents that are similar to themselves in abilities and opinions. Others

however, advocate that individuals sometimes select referents that are dissimilar to

themselves (Cook, Crosby & Hennigan, 1977; Goodman, 1977; Mettee & Smith,

1977). Additionally, individuals can also compare their experiences with an

internalized standard of what is fair (Gruder, 1977). Given such flexibility, it is

uncertain as “to whom” different employment groups might choose to compare

themselves (Barling & Gallagher, 1996).

The second methodological concern relates to identification of the dimensions of

comparison. Studies show that there are a variety of reasons why individuals are

attracted to temporary work (Feldman, Doerpinghaus & Turnley, 1994; Gannon,

1984; Tan & Tan, 2002; Von Hippel et al., 1997). Such reasons include: a sense of

freedom, flexible hours, variety, and skill development. Different employment

conditions are likely to satisfy those individual needs to varying degrees.

Correspondingly, the influence of individual-difference factors, such as the presence

and ages of dependent children, are likely to mean that some employment conditions

53

bear more importance than others in satisfying the fulfillment of individual needs.

Not only are there differences in the actual employment conditions of various

employment groups, but also there are likely to be differences in the level of

importance individuals assign to those conditions. Feldman’s (1990) observations

stated earlier regarding differences in how some workers view the trade-off between

lower wages and greater flexibility are not inconsistent with such a suggestion.

Given such contingencies in the dimensions of comparison, it is uncertain as “to

what” employment conditions workers might choose to compare themselves (Barling

& Gallagher, 1996). Beset with such theoretical uncertainty regarding referent

choice and the complexity involved with multiple comparison dimensions to find

potential perceived inequities, it is unsurprising that few researchers have accepted

the challenge of applying the frame of reference approach to differentially predicting

work outcomes across employment groups.

Partial inclusion approach

Another theoretical framework used to investigate and explain job status differences

between part-time and full-time workers is the concept of partial inclusion.

Developed by Allport in 1933, the concept was later linked to individual social roles

within organisations by Katz and Kahn in 1978 (Barling & Gallagher, 1996). In

essence, organisational roles demand particular behaviours that require only a

‘psychological slice’ of a worker, leaving the worker to negotiate their many other

segmental commitments (Katz & Kahn, 1978). Accordingly, as temporary workers

may be involved in an organisation’s social system only on a fragmented or partial

basis, they therefore cannot be expected to behave in accordance with norms and

other perceptions shared among other, more included workers. Applied to the

examination of job status affects, the theory of partial inclusion endeavours to

explain why part-time workers’ job attitudes may be more positive than those of full-

time employees. How such an approach is relevant to understanding temporary

workers is two-fold. First, some temporaries work on a part-time basis, so

application of the concept is logical. For those temporary workers, however, whose

hours are similar to those of full-timers, there is empirical evidence to suggest that

full-time temporaries are excluded from, or partially included in, many of the

54

traditional features of permanent full-time work arrangements (e.g., Aronsson, 1999;

Bauman, 1993; Geary, 1992; Olesen & Katsuanis, 1978; Smith, 1994).

Some researchers (e.g., Miller & Terborg, 1979) suggest that part-time workers are

less likely to be involved in the organisation’s social system than full-timers and less

involved in organisational politics (Galup, Saunders, Nelson & Cerveny, 1997).

Being partially included may lead such workers to have different reactions to

organisational demands and task stimuli (Burke & Greenglass, 2000; Miller &

Terborg, 1979). Reasoning that, with less time at work and more time to engage in

other social systems, part-timers may have more competing demands than full-

timers, thus creating a different tolerance for work demands (Miller & Terborg,

1979). It is further suggested that with fewer hours in the workplace part-timers have

limited contact with, and knowledge of, an organisation thereby restricting

information concerning organisational problems with which to develop negative

attitudes. With less information, it is argued that part-timers are likely to be less

critical of their employers and therefore more content (Eberhardt & Shani, 1984;

Wetzel, Soloshy & Gallagher, 1990). Research based upon such a view has to date

received mixed support, however.

Studies adopting the partial inclusion approach provide inconsistent findings.

Supporting the approach is Eberhardt and Shani's (1984) employee attitude

comparisons involving a number of organisational characteristics among hospital

employees. Employment status had significant effects on a number of employee

attitudes. Part-timers reported more favourable attitudes toward the organisation’s

structure, policies, and reward system than full-time employees. In addition, overall

job satisfaction for part-timers was significantly higher than for full-time employees.

Part-timers were more satisfied with the level of trust among organisational

members, and the distribution of power in the organisation as well. Demographic

differences were found to be unrelated to the job status effect. Eberhardt and Shani

(1984) concluded that either lower job expectations or insufficient information about

organisational problems, caused by being only partially included, explained the more

favourable attitudes of the part-time employees.

55

At odds with such findings though, is Miller and Terborg’s (1979) study that

compared the job attitudes of full- and part-time retail clerical employees. Like

Eberhardt and Shani's (1984) results, employment status had significant effects on a

number of employee attitudes. Unlike Eberhardt and Shani's (1984) findings though,

part-time respondents were significantly less satisfied with their work, benefits, and

the job in general than their full-time counterparts. There were no differences in

satisfaction with supervision, pay, or advancement, however. After controlling for

gender and tenure effects, the attitude differences remained (Miller & Terborg,

1979). Like Eberhardt and Shani (1984), Miller and Terborg (1979) drew on the

partial inclusion concept to explain their results, suggesting that part-time employees

might have a different tolerance for organisational demands being less included in

the organisation’s social system and more included in outside social systems. Other

role commitments by part-timers, therefore, may perhaps limit the time devoted to

the work role thereby reducing satisfaction. Even though the studies’ samples were

drawn from different occupations, hospital employees (Eberhardt & Shani, 1984) and

retail employees (Miller & Terborg, 1979), which might explain the contradictory

results, both studies drew upon the same concept, partial inclusion, to explain their

conflicting findings. Thus, the partial inclusion approach appears rather adaptable in

that it is used to explain both favourable and disagreeable work outcomes.

The flexibility of the concept of partial inclusion in interpreting comparisons

between full- and part-time employees is demonstrated by yet another study (Wetzel

et al., 1990). This time differences on personal and job characteristics and work-

related attitudes between full- and part-time nurses (including temporaries) were

examined. Unlike either Eberhardt and Shani’s (1984) or Miller and Terborg’s

(1979) findings, the data showed that apart from significant demographic differences,

both part-time and full-time respondents were similar in their work-related attitudes.

Despite, on average, that the part-time nurses received significantly lower wages,

employment status did not influence respondents’ commitment or satisfaction levels.

The only differences identified between the employment status groups were the

number of hours worked and the level of job involvement. Part-timers reported

lower involvement. As this lower involvement did not coincide with less

satisfaction, Wetzel et al. (1990) concluded that the findings were consistent with the

principle of partial inclusion, concluding that less involvement meant less access to

56

information about organisational problems thereby thwarting the development of

negative work attitudes.

In sum, the available literature on part-time employment using the partial inclusion

theory has produced inconsistent results. It is disappointing that the partial inclusion

approach has been unsuccessful as temporary workers, like part-timers, remain to

varying degrees outside many of the usual organisational structural, and social forces

associated with full-time jobs. Given that part-time employees are more concerned

with the social aspects of organisational membership than full-timers (Levanoni &

Sales, 1990) and temporary employees can find their work socially isolating (Algren,

1997; Garsten, 1999; Parker, 1994; Rogers, 1995), ostensibly partial inclusion theory

appears an appropriate way to understand the work attitudes and behaviours of such

workers. Empirical results though, tell a different story. As compared with full-time

employees, part-time hospital employees are shown to be more satisfied with their

jobs (Eberhardt & Shani, 1984); part-time retail workers less satisfied (Miller &

Terborg, 1979); and part-time nurses not significantly different in their work

attitudes (Wetzel et al., 1990). Apart from the apparent flexibility with which the

concept of partial inclusion is applied to interpret the various findings in the job-

related attitudes of part- and full-timers, another reason may explain the limitations

of the approach. Namely, although job involvement can be partial in terms of time it

may also vary in terms of the psychological involvement of part-time employees

(Barling & Gallagher, 1996). The next section thus considers employment quality,

by reviewing the literature on how workers view the psychological aspects of

temporary employment arrangements.

Psychological contract theory approach

Another theoretical approach used to predict and to interpret attitudinal differences

between employees in non-traditional forms of employment and permanent workers

is psychological contract theory. The theory proposes that workers form a

psychological contract with their employers based upon their own belief system and

how the organisation treats its employees. Past interactions and social contexts

contribute to the creation of these individually-held perceptions of what the

57

employee owes the organisation and what is owed in return (Rousseau, 1989;

Rousseau & McLean Parks, 1993). Employees then behave in ways that they believe

are expected (e.g., in terms of effort and loyalty) and form expectations as to how

employers will reciprocate (e.g., in terms of pay, promotion, and security) (Rousseau

& Greller, 1994). The psychological contract thus aids in reducing uncertainty,

providing the employee with predictability and control in their employment

relationship (Shore & Tetrick, 1994).

Psychological contracts are said to range from ‘transactional’ (short-term low

involvement) relationships to ‘relational’ (open-ended high trust) exchanges

(Robinson, Kraatz & Rousseau, 1994; Rousseau, 1990). Transactional obligations

essentially deal with the economic exchange of the employment relationship: specific

tasks, short-term benefits, and monetary returns. Relational contracts, in direct

contrast, concern the socio-emotional side of the relationship, characterised by long

term relations engendering feelings of affective involvement, trust, and commitment

(Shore & Tetrick, 1994).

Applying psychological contract theory to the study of temporary workers is useful

in two ways, enabling consideration of both within and between group differences.

For instance, rather than assuming all types of contingent workers are alike the

theory allows different types of atypical employees to be investigated (McLean Parks

et al., 1998). Within group differences say, between agency temporaries and

independent contractors can be examined separately allowing for varying sets of

mutual employment obligations. Independent contractors for example, control their

own work at one, or at multiple organisations, none of whom assume the legal

responsibilities of an employer. Agency workers in contrast, are controlled by their

agency’s client organisation, yet the agency bears the legal role of employer

(Kalleberg et al., 2000). Second, focus on a worker’s psychological contract in

addition, enables researchers to examine inter-group differences, between temporary

workers and their permanent counterparts (McLean Parks et al., 1998).

Transactional contracts, it is argued, best capture the nature of temporary work

relationships (Rousseau, 1989; Rousseau & McLean Parks, 1993; Rousseau &

Wade-Benzoni, 1994). For instance, temporary work generally is characterised by

58

short-term specific work arrangements that require limited involvement by both the

employee and the organisation (Cavanaugh & Noe, 1999). Indeed, the mobile and

transient nature of temporary employment diminishes the likelihood of developing a

sense of workplace community for such workers (Garsten, 1999). As such,

temporary workers are likely to be prevented from developing interpersonal

attachments and trust in their workplaces (Beard & Edwards, 1995).

Stated earlier, relational psychological contracts are open-ended with longer

opportunities for repeated cycles of contribution and reciprocity between the

employer and employee. Underlying relational contracts is trust that develops over

time from the belief that employee contributions will be reciprocated by the

organisation, binding the two parties together and thereby eliciting the employee’s

loyalty and commitment. With limited opportunity to benefit from, or perhaps even

access, organisational inducements, such as training and career development,

temporary workers are hypothesized to take a predominantly instrumental view of

their employment relationship, and are therefore unlikely to develop high levels of

organisational commitment (Rousseau, 1989, 1990; Rousseau & McLean Parks,

1993).

Studies examining transactional and relational aspects of employees’ psychological

contracts, though, provide less than convincing results. For psychological contract

theory to assist us in understanding temporary employees, support needs to be found

that employees distinguish between relational and transactional aspects of their

employment relationships. Also the two types of relationships must be related to

different work attitudes and behaviours. In a sample of which 9.4 per cent held

temporary jobs, Millward and Hopkins (1998) found support for the two distinct

types of contractual orientations, reporting that the more transactional the

psychological orientation of employees, the lower their level of job and

organisational commitment. Also supporting the theory, the two types of contracts

were inversely correlated; that is, the higher the relational orientation, the lower the

transactional tendency. Permanent employees were more relational in their

contractual orientation than were their temporary counterparts (Millward & Hopkins,

1998). Similarly, yet amongst a sample of permanent employees, Kalleberg and

Rognes’s (2000) study provides modest support that those individuals with more

59

relational employment conditions report higher commitment and job satisfaction than

employees whose employment conditions are less relational.

Using a temporary employee only sample though, Sloboda (1999) found temporary

workers did not distinguish between relational and transactional aspects of their

employment contracts. Unlike Millward and Hopkins’ (1998) results, the scores for

each type of contract were substantially correlated. Sloboda’s (1999) factor analysis

of the scales indicated that the temporary employees appeared to group contractual

obligations by the source of obligations (i.e., the agency or the client organisation)

rather than by the nature of the obligations (i.e., transactional or relational). Sloboda

(1999) also suggests that, compared to permanent employees, temporary workers

might interpret training and development as more transactional in nature than

relational. Rather than viewing training as a long-term inducement to remain with an

organisation, as theorized by Rousseau (1989), temporary workers might view their

opportunities to build skills instrumentally to enhance future employability (Sloboda,

1999).

Other studies (McDonald & Makin, 2000; Millward & Brewerton, 1999) comparing

the psychological contracts of permanents and temporary workers report no

significant differences in either the overall levels of psychological contract, or in the

sub-scales for transactional or relational orientations. The psychological contracts of

temporary employees were not predominately transactional, but had a relational

component at least as strong as that of the permanent workers. McDonald and Makin

(2000), consistent with Sloboda’s (1999) findings, found that the temporary

employees scored significantly higher on the relational item of career development

than did permanent employees. As McDonald and Makin’ s sample was drawn from

the tourist and travel industry, where jobs are generally perceived as both high status

and glamorous, the desire to secure a permanent job was high. Replacement

permanent workers were often drawn from the pool of seasonal employees. Many of

the temporaries, therefore had high expectations of eventually joining the permanent

workforce in that industry (McDonald & Makin, 2000), thereby highly valuing the

opportunity to gain vocational training in their temporary roles.

60

Millward and Brewerton’s (1999) study using agency employees (temporary and

permanent contractors) working in a client organisation compares these workers on

the meaning of their employment contracts, benchmarked against temporary

employees hired directly by the client company. Respondents did distinguish

between relational and transactional aspects of their employment relationships. Both

sub-scales, moreover, correlated with opposing work attitudes as expected. The

relational scale, for instance, was significantly positively correlated with job and

organisational commitment, whereas these measures were significantly negatively

related to the transactional scale. Direct-hire temporary employees reported being

the least transactional, as predicted. Contrary to expectations though, permanent and

temporary contractors did not differ in the extent to which they characterised their

contract in transactional terms. Also contrary to prediction, no difference between

direct-hire temporary employees and permanent contractors was determined in terms

of the relational aspects of their employment contracts. Contractor status alone

therefore, was not the most powerful predictor of whether or not a transactional or

relational contract is formed (Millward & Brewerton, 1999). From this limited

amount of empirical work on the psychological contracts of temporary workers

therefore, it is premature to conclude that, generally, temporary employees think and

act instrumentally as predicted by the short-term, low involvement nature of their

employment contracts. More research is needed to explore the effects that temporary

job status has on employee perceptions of their psychological contracts (De Meuse et

al., 2001).

Demographic approach

Another comparison approach to understand the attitudes and behaviours of

temporary employees concerns the analysis of differences in demographic

characteristics across employment status groups. Such an approach contends that

different demographic groups use systematically different frames of reference with

which to evaluate their work experiences (Feldman, 1990), accounting for

differences in motivation and satisfaction across different employment status groups

(Feldman, 1995). Having convivial co-workers for instance, might be more

important for post-retirees than for students; developing new skills more important

61

for those re-entering the workforce; and promotional opportunities of less concern

for students interested only in short-term financial returns. Empirical work in this

area, generally provides analyses of population survey data (e.g., Cohany, 1996,

1998; Polivka, 1996) or investigates links between different demographic groups in

temporary work arrangements to their work-related attitudes.

Descriptive studies outlining the numbers and characteristics of temporary workers

provide some support for the demographic convergence idea. United States

temporary job rates are particularly high for workers between 20 and 24 years

(Cohany, 1996, 1998; Farber, 1999; Polivka, 1996), for instance. Temporary jobs

are more likely to be held by women in Canada and the United Kingdom, and the

workers are more likely to be under 24 years of age (Felstead, Krahn & Powell,

1999).

As well, trends in reasons for taking temporary work have been identified in

descriptive studies. Males between 19 years and retirement age give their primary

reason for taking temporary jobs is that permanent work is unavailable. While

women (aged 19 to 24) are most likely to give the same unavailability reason, by

contrast, after the age of 24 the most common reason given is that a permanent job is

not wanted (Dale & Bamford, 1988). The flexibility of temporary work patterns is

seen by some as “family friendly” (Brewster & Mayne, 1997), enabling work to fit

around, and between, carer responsibilities. For women, whose domestic obligations

prevent them from pursing permanent work, the desire for flexible work schedules,

and a supplemental income makes temporary work an attractive option (Christensen,

1987; Hunter & MacInnes, 1991). Temporary workers are three to four times more

likely than permanent workers to be enrolled as students (Polivka, 1996). Despite

the identification of such trends and concentrations of particular age groups where

temporary work is more prevalent, there is much diversity in the characteristics of

jobs and workers within temporary employment arrangements (Cohany, 1998;

Polivka, 1996; Wooden, 1999).

Other studies following this approach group temporary workers on the basis of their

demographic or other personal characteristics and seek links with their work-related

attitudes. Feldman et al. (1994 & 1995) for example, identify four groups who view

62

temporary work as an attractive job opportunity: working mothers, college students,

older workers in pre-retirement, and the short-term unemployed (those recently laid

off from other work, or those “filling in” until a permanent position is found). Both

these studies conclude that different demographic groups appear to concentrate in

different types of temporary work arrangements (e.g., whether or not seeking

permanent work; whether or not working through an employment agency). Feldman

and Doerpinghaus (1992a & 1992b) also show that temporary part-timers and

permanent part-timers tend to have different demographic profiles. Not surprisingly,

results suggest that those who prefer their temporary jobs, who have jobs that are

consistent with their education and work experience, and who are not seeking

permanent positions report more positive job attitudes.

Underlying the demographic approach are “labour supply-led growth" arguments,

which advocate that changing demographics in the workforce drive the expansion in

temporary employment opportunities. Accordingly, an increasing number of

workers seek variety and flexibility in their work lives, thereby giving less value to

the benefits associated with long-term employment such as promotion, training, and

pensions (Appelbaum, 1992; Brewster & Mayne 1997; Carré, 1992; Gannon, 1975).

Demand-side advocates argue however, that employers create temporary positions

partly to take advantage of depressed labour markets, since mothers, teenagers, and

retirees lack bargaining power and have limited work alternatives (e.g., Atkinson,

1987; Appelbaum, 1992; Carré, 1992; Dale & Bamford, 1988; Tilly, 1992a;

Wooden, 1999).

Given the opposing views – individuals seek out and prefer temporary work versus

individuals involuntarily accept temporary work – it seems likely that temporary

work arrangements are beneficial for some workers but not for others. For some the

flexibility and variety temporary employment provides is attractive. In contrast,

other individuals see temporary work as undesirable, feeling pressured owing to a

lack of other employment alternatives (Rogers, 2000). Irrespective of which side of

the labour market determines the aggregation of particular demographic groups

working in temporary jobs, some researchers argue that what individuals prefer, and

whether they perceive that having a temporary job is by choice, is more critical in

determining job attitudes and behaviours than are demographic influences (Barling &

63

Gallahger, 1996; Ellingson, Gruys & Sackett, 1998; Feldman, 1995; Krausz, 2000;

Nisbet & Thomas, 2000; Organ & Paine, 2000; Van Dyne & Ang, 1998). These

issues of job status preference and choice are discussed in the next sections.

Work status congruence approach

As previously discussed, the question of whether some individuals self-select or are

forced into temporary employment is so far unresolved. Feldman (1995) suggests

workers’ expectations and motivations for taking part-time or temporary jobs largely

influences their subsequent job satisfaction and performance. To that end therefore,

the ‘work status congruence’ approach examines job status preferences across job

status groups. Employees in congruent jobs (e.g., full-timers who prefer full-time

work, part-timers who prefer part-time work) are said to have more favourable job

attitudes. Employees in congruent jobs are better able to acquire what they desire

from their jobs than employees with incongruent job status, say, full-timers

preferring part-time work or part-timers preferring full-time work (Tansky et al.,

1997).

In a comparison study of part-time and full-time nurses, Morrow, McElroy and

Elliott (1994) report mixed support for a match between preferred and actual work

status, schedule (number of hours worked), and shift (time of day worked) resulting

in more favourable work-related attitudes. Contrary to expectations, no significant

differences in job satisfaction or job involvement were noted between those who

obtained their preferences and those who did not. However, even after controlling

for the possible confounding effects of education levels and organisational tenure,

the data showed that, although work status match had no effect on attitudes, when

preferred schedules or shifts were realised, respondents reported higher levels of

commitment (Morrow et al., 1994).

In another study (Armstrong-Stassen, Horsburgh & Cameron, 1994) examining both

within and between-group comparisons of full- and part-time nurses’ work schedule

preferences, stronger support is provided for the work status congruence perspective.

Data was gathered over two time periods, pre- and post the announcement of

64

organisational downsizing. Results indicated that work satisfactions were

significantly greater amongst both full-time and part-time employees whose

schedules (total hours worked) were consistent with their preferences. Full-timers

who preferred part-time work were less satisfied with their jobs and had higher

turnover intentions, for instance. In addition, part-timers who preferred full-time

schedules reported significantly higher levels of perceived job insecurity than any

other group. Job status congruence, rather than job status itself, was concluded to be

a significant predictor of employees’ work attitudes (Armstrong-Stassen et al., 1994).

Again with a sample of nurses, Burke and Greenglass (2000) found significant group

effects between full- and part-time workers based upon whether they worked their

preferred work status. Data showed that respondents with congruent work status

were generally more satisfied and psychologically healthier than those reporting an

incongruent work status. Findings included that part-timers who preferred to be full-

timers (PT/FT) reported greater threats to their job security, greater perceived job

insecurity and significantly less financial resources in the event of job loss than the

other three groups (i.e., FT/FT, FT/PT, PT/PT). Burke and Greenglass (2000)

concluded that for the PT/FT group the status incongruence indicated a lack of

choice, as, even though full-time status was preferred, these respondents were unable

to find such jobs at a time of significant health care organisational mergers,

downsizing, or closures.

A fourth study (Krausz, Sagie & Bidermann, 2000), again amongst nurses, shows

that actual work schedule (either full-time or part-time) did not account for variances

in job–related attitudes. Instead, the psychological variables of respondents’

preferred work schedule and their degree of control over the timing of their schedules

were significant determinants of work attitudes. Results showed that preferences for

a heavier work schedule were positively associated with job satisfaction and

organisational commitment and negatively with burnout. In the sample though,

unmet expectations of an increased work schedule was not a major source of

frustration. Just as Armstrong-Stassen et al. (1994) concluded that job status

congruence, rather than the status itself, was a significant predictor of work attitudes

so too do Krausz et al. (2000): that psychological variables that reflect personal

65

needs and choice, rather than the objective measure of job status, prove to be more

effective predictors of work attitudes.

Another study (Lee & Johnson, 1991) examined work status congruence effects

while including a group of temporary workers. The study differentiated the sample

according to their work schedule (i.e., full- vs part-time) and their employment status

(i.e., permanent vs temporary). The authors argued that one’s preferences and length

of work hours affects the way one views the exchange of individual contributions

(for example effort) for organisational inducements (such as benefits). Thus, when

working a desired work schedule, one’s contributions would seem to be effectively

exchanged, predisposing one to positive attitudes and behaviours. Full-time workers,

because of their greater exposure to receive, and thereby reinforce, an organisation’s

inducements would be affected to higher extent. Correspondingly, under the

condition of an unpreferred schedule, those who work longest find the job more

onerous, prompting negative work outcomes.

Hypotheses for temporary employees were supported (Lee & Johnson, 1991).

Amongst those on a preferred temporary work schedule, full-timers indicated higher

organisational commitment than part-timers. For temporaries on an unpreferred

schedule, full-timers reported lower organisational commitment and lower job

satisfaction than their part-time counterparts. Only partial support was demonstrated

however, amongst the permanent worker hypotheses. The only hypothesis that drew

support involved permanents on preferred schedules. For those employees, full-

timers reported higher organisational commitment than part-timers. The

organisational commitment though, of permanents working unpreferred schedules

did not differ amongst the full- and part-time employees. Lee and Johnson (1991)

concluded that systematic differences in job attitudes across job status groups might

have been masked in past studies, as worker preferences were not considered.

Theoretical support for findings as described above is provided within the person-

environment (P-E) or person-organisation (P-O) fit literature. Based upon the

premise that attitudes, behaviour, and other individual-level outcomes result not from

the individual or environment separately, but rather from the relationship between

the two (Edwards, 1996; Holland, 1992), research in this domain concerns the

66

compatibility between workers and the environments in which they work (Kristof,

1996). Accordingly, individuals are said to seek out environments that are congruent

with their needs and abilities (Holland, 1992); and to resolve incongruence by

changing the present environment or by adjusting personal behaviour and

perceptions (Spokane, 1994). One form of fit concerns the congruence between an

individual’s motives and the supplies in the job and environment to meet the goals

and preferences induced by those motives (French, Caplan & Harrison, 1982). P-E

fit theory predicts that when supplies are insufficient for motives there is an increase

in stress and strains, such as job dissatisfaction and anxiety (French et al., 1982).

Reinterpreted within the P-E fit framework then, the ‘work status congruence’

studies involve supplies of work hours provided by the organisation and employee

preferences for a particular number of work hours. Just as reported in these studies

(i.e., Armstrong-Stassen, et al., 1994; Burke & Greenglass, 2000; Lee & Johnson,

1991) positive work attitudes are shown to result from P-E fit conceptualized from a

needs-supplies perspective. Empirical results supporting the positive consequences

of P-E fit for job satisfaction, organisational commitment, extra-role behaviours, and

retention rates are extensive (Kristof, 1996). Thus the attainment of, or failure to

achieve, a preferred work status appears to be a promising avenue of investigation to

explain differences in work outcomes across job status groups. Even so, preference

in and of itself might not fully explain how and why work status affects work-related

attitudes (Morrow et al., 1994). That not all workers realise their job status

preferences means that other factors may thwart some workers from acting upon

their preferences. The perceived availability of employment alternatives is one

possible explanation and the focus of the next section.

Volition (choice of job status) approach

A related approach to investigating workers’ preferences is the ‘volition’ or

‘voluntary’ versus ‘involuntary’ stream of research. Although such a distinction is

similar to the work status congruence approach (Tansky et al., 1997) discussed

previously, the volition approach examines the extent of choice a worker has in their

job status. To explain further, in work status congruence studies respondents are

67

asked to indicate their current job status and their preferred job status. In

voluntary/involuntary studies generally, participants are asked whether their work

arrangements are by their own choice and to what extent can they choose, for

example, the number of hours worked or what shifts are to be worked. Thus, the

work status congruence approach relates to worker preferences whereas the volition

approach concerns issues of choice. To illustrate, a worker may prefer temporary

work because they perceive they have little choice, since no permanent work is

available to them. Alternately, a worker may choose temporary work, not because

they have few opportunities to obtain permanent work, but because the conditions of

temporary work, such as task variety or skill enhancement holds great appeal.

Volition has been defined as “the degree to which employees believe they had choice

in the selection of the nature of the employment relationship” (McLean Parks et al.,

1998, p. 720). Volition links action to the individual (Salancik, 1982) thereby

increasing the individual’s ownership for what happens. Specifically, it is argued

that workers who believe they have voluntarily chosen a type of employment

relationship will be more committed to that relationship (Feldman, 1990; McLean

Parks et al., 1998). Thus, “the greater the perceived voluntariness in contracting, the

more satisfied and committed to the organization the workers will be” (McLean

Parks et al., 1998, p. 721). Indeed, this proposition is consistent with empirical

findings.

Krausz, Brandwein and Fox (1995) used a single dichotomous item to differentiate

between employees who work temporarily by choice (preferring this arrangement

over others) from those who do not, finding that voluntary temporaries reported

significantly higher levels of overall satisfaction, intrinsic satisfaction (e.g., work

variety and challenge), and position and power satisfaction (e.g., status and authority)

than involuntary temporaries or permanent employees. These results lead Krausz et

al. (1995) to suggest that control may be an underlying dynamic behind the effects of

choice on satisfaction. After all, individuals that function in environments that

promote choice experience less pressure and tension (Deci & Ryan, 1987); and

consistent with self-perception theory (Bem, 1872), choice, rather than coercion, is

believed to make individuals more committed to their actions.

68

Similar results are provided elsewhere. Feldman et al. (1995) reports that employees

who hold their temporary jobs voluntarily have significantly more positive work

attitudes than their involuntary co-workers. To assess the extent of volition, Feldman

et al. (1995) uses two dichotomous questions. The first asks respondents to indicate

whether they are working voluntarily or not in temporary jobs. The second question

inquires if participants are working in these jobs for the positive attractions of

temporary work or because they have no other employment alternatives. Thus it

appears that when faced with a dichotomous choice, respondents who see themselves

as “freely choosing” temporary work are more content with their work situations.

The study also differentiates between temporaries seeking permanent work and those

who are not. Permanent job-seeking temporaries were significantly less committed

to their work, and less satisfied with their pay and their temporary agencies than

those not seeking permanent jobs (Feldman et al., 1995). The combined effects of

volition and desire for permanent work on attitudes however, were not assessed.

With a sample of only temporary employees, Krausz (2000) uses a single

dichotomous item to measure whether or not respondents believe they chose their

work status. Additionally, the participants are asked if they are interested in, or are

actively seeking permanent employment. Unlike Feldman et al.’s (1995) study,

Krausz (2000) examines the combined effects of these measures. Krausz

hypothesizes that those who chose temporary work as a long-term mode of

employment are more likely to report positive attitudes. Results show that temporary

employees by choice, who view their temporary job status as a long-term

employment option, are more satisfied and job involved, and less stressed than either

involuntary temporaries, or those who chose temporary work yet desire permanent

work.

Yet people often adapt their goals to what is achievable for them (Diener, Suh, Lucas

& Smith, 1999). Therefore, it is possible that some temporaries “adjust” their

expectations with respect to finding permanent employment. Krausz (2000) asks his

respondents to rate the desirability of 18 work rewards, such as job challenge, job

security, and opportunities to meet new people. These ratings allowed Krausz to

statistically control for the level of reward desirability when comparing the

satisfaction measures between the groups of temporaries. Therefore, the study’s

69

design rules out the possibility that choice is an outcome of the reported satisfaction

levels, but rather a cause amongst respondents who chose temporary work as a long-

term mode of employment (Krausz, 2000). These results directly address Pfeffer and

Baron’s (1988) concern that temporary workers might adjust their expectations:

believing themselves limited to temporary work such workers may come to terms

with their situation by “choosing” not to desire the work rewards associated with

permanent attachment to one employing organisation.

In review, these studies (Feldman et al., 1995; Krausz et al., 1995; Krausz, 2000) all

measure the extent to which temporary workers believe they have a choice in their

employment status. Voluntary temporaries reported more positive work attitudes

than either involuntary temporaries (Feldman et al, 1995; Krausz et al., 1995;

Krausz, 2000) or permanent employees (Krausz et al., 1995). Additionally,

temporaries who sought permanent work were less committed to their work, and less

satisfied than those not seeking permanent jobs (Feldman et al., 1995). When the

effects of choice and whether temporaries were actively seeking permanent work or

not were combined, temporary employees who favoured their temporary status as a

long-term prospect, were more satisfied, and less stressed or involved than either

involuntary temporaries, or those who chose temporary work yet desired permanent

work (Krausz, 2000). Even so, what is not explained in these studies is why

individuals might choose temporary work, yet still seek a permanent job.

In a study sampling only temporary workers, Ellingson, Gruys and Sackett (1998)

argue that choice to pursue temporary employment is more complex than the

traditional voluntary or involuntary dichotomy. The study therefore, examines

various reasons why workers might choose temporary work, as well as measuring

work status preference with a single dichotomous item. Some individuals choose

temporary employment for the flexibility, variety, and freedom it provides. Such

individuals are classified as voluntary temporaries. Alternately, involuntary

temporary workers are those who desire permanent work but are unable to obtain it;

they therefore feel pressured to accept temporary jobs due to a lack of other

employment opportunities. Given the chance, such individuals would choose

permanent work over temporary work if it were available. Ellingson et al. (1998)

argue that an individual might choose temporary work based on both voluntary and

70

involuntary reasons. For instance, whilst an individual may be attracted to the

flexibility of temporary work they may also have difficulty finding permanent work.

In other words, voluntary and involuntary reasons might be complementary, rather

than mutually exclusive, when an individual considers the extent to which they

“freely choose” temporary work.

Respondents were asked to rate the extent to which a number of reasons (identified

by the researchers) played a role in their decision to work in a temporary position.

From the eight reasons nominated as to why an individual might choose temporary

work, two factors were derived. The voluntary factor contained items relating to a

sense of freedom, flexible hours, variety, and the potential to work for a shorter

length of time. The other factor, taken as an involuntary indicator, comprised items

regarding job loss, difficulty finding permanent work, being laid off and a tight

labour market (Ellingson et al., 1998).

Whereas Feldman et al.’s study (1995) and Krausz’s study (2000) measured whether

or not temporaries were actively seeking permanent employment, Ellingson et al.

(1998) assessed the extent to which difficulty in finding permanent work played a

role in the acceptance of temporary work. Ellingson et al. (1998) also broadened the

range of voluntary and involuntary factors contributing to the decision to undertake

temporary work; and also examined how each respondent’s various reasons to pursue

temporary employment had differential effects on work outcomes. Comparative

analysis of the two measurement methods did in fact yield different results. When

the dichotomous preference item was used to classify, and then compare voluntary

and involuntary employees’ satisfaction, only pay satisfaction and temporary work

satisfaction were shown to be significantly different, such that voluntary temporaries

were more satisfied. When volition was operationalized as the reasons that underlie

the choice to pursue temporary work other significant differences were revealed.

Whereas the involuntary factor showed significant correlations with all six of the

satisfaction measures, the voluntary factor displayed significant correlations with

only two satisfaction measures. Specifically, involuntary temporaries reported

significantly lower levels of growth, pay, coworker, supervision, overall assignment

(all at p < 0.10), and temporary work satisfactions (p < 0.01). The voluntary factor,

71

on the other hand, was significantly related only to growth satisfaction (p < 0.10) and

temporary work satisfaction (p < 0.01) (Ellingson et al., 1998).

Although the significance level (p < 0.10) at which Ellingson et al. (1998) detected

some of the between group satisfaction differences is higher than that commonly

accepted, these results suggest an interesting conundrum. These findings tend to

suggest the idea that individuals can undertake temporary work for reasons that

simultaneously include characteristics that have traditionally been treated as

desirable (i.e., flexibility) as well as those that are disagreeable (i.e., lack of

employment alternatives). As more facets of satisfaction were affected by

involuntary reasons to accept temporary work than voluntary reasons, Ellingson et

al.’s findings (1998) tend to suggest that involuntary factors are more pervasive in

their effects on temporary workers’ satisfaction level. Elsewhere however, voluntary

reasons for accepting temporary jobs, rather than involuntary ones were found to

significantly influence work outcomes.

In a predominantly student sample in Singapore the importance attached to the

reasons for working as a temporary was demonstrated to affect job satisfaction facets

differentially (Tan & Tan, 2002). Data were collected before an Asian financial

crisis. With low unemployment rates and labour shortages (Bian & Ang, 1997),

anyone who desired a job was likely to find one. Local newspapers and practitioner

journals were scanned to determine six reasons why individuals might undertake

temporary work. The reasons of family, economic incentives or benefits, self-

improvement, personal preference (voluntary factors), using a temporary job as a

means to get permanent work, and having difficulty in getting a permanent job

(involuntary factors) were identified. Unlike Ellingson et al.’s (1998) findings where

involuntary reasons to accept temporary work had more significant effects on facets

of job satisfaction than voluntary reasons, Tan and Tan (2002) report voluntary

reasons to accept temporary work contributed more explanatory power to job

satisfaction facets than did the involuntary reasons.

Another difference between these studies concerns the importance of self-

improvement as a motive to undertake temporary work. Ellingson et al. (1998) did

not measure the reason of self-improvement, though the Singapore study (Tan &

72

Tan, 2002) reports it as the most significant voluntary factor related to job

satisfaction in their sample. Temporary workers add to their stock of skills through

their experiences in applying such skills in various settings (Mangum et al., 1985).

Thus, in a booming economy with a minimized risk of long-term unemployment

between jobs, Tan and Tan surmised that their target population was different from

those in more constrained labour markets. Making use therefore, of the opportunity

to try different types of work, the young sample (83.5 per cent were 15 to 30 years of

age) presumably lacking in much work experience, found temporary work provided

them with an opportunity to gain skills and to “enrich” their resumes, resulting in

high job satisfaction (Tan & Tan, 2002).

Another study (Peiró, García-Montalvo & Gracia, 2002) recognises that individuals

differ in their preferences and behaviours when faced with job opportunities. The

study was conducted in Spain where, in contrast to the Singapore study (Tan & Tan,

2002), youth unemployment is very high, ranging from 17 per cent (25-29 years) to

39 per cent (16-19 years). Demographic and psychological characteristics were

identified that might influence young people (under 30 years) to resist accepting

temporary and fixed term contract work. A number of job flexibility demands were

determined and included, jobs that: lack opportunities to learn, require higher

qualifications, require the worker to move residence to another town or city, or where

the worker is over-qualified for the job. Respondents were asked, for example,

whether they would accept a temporary job that offered no opportunities to learn. If

they were not prepared to accept such a job, they were subsequently asked to indicate

what reduction of salary they were ready to accept in order to retain such a job

attribute instead of accepting a job with a non-preferred job flexibility feature (Peiró

et al., 2002).

One of the psychological variables measured in the study was labour market outlook,

the individual’s perceived probability of finding a job that fits their qualifications,

experience or preferences. A more positive labour market outlook was hypothesized

to raise the probability of resisting a non-preferred job flexibility demand. In other

words, if the opportunity to learn was a preferred flexibility feature and one had the

optimistic belief a job offer fulfilling that need might occur shortly, then one would

resist the urge to accept a job not providing learning experiences. Such a finding

73

would be consistent with Tan and Tan’s (2002) results previously mentioned.

Nevertheless, Peiró et al.’s (2002) data shows the reverse effect. Specifically, the

more favourable the labour market outlook respondents reported the less probable it

was that they would resist accepting a temporary job without any opportunities to

learn.

Perhaps for Peiró et al.’s (2002) sample, as some commentators (e.g., Jahoda, 1981;

Kessler, Turner & House, 1989) argue, even a bad job (in this case, without learning

opportunities) is better than unemployment. Taken together, these two studies (Peiró

et al., 2002; Tan & Tan, 2002) undertaken in the two extremes of labour market

opportunities, support the view that the employment choices that people make

depend on the job alternatives they have (Nollen, 1996). In fact labour market

conditions affecting a worker’s “external mobility” or the ability to choose

alternative employment, can significantly influence their work attitudes and

behaviour (Cappelli & Sherer, 1990). Given the inconsistent findings of past

research on temporary workers, Van Dyne and Ang (1998) suggest that forces such

as external labour market conditions might exert important and overriding influence

on the attitudes and behaviours of such employees.

As stated earlier, the involuntary reasons why Ellingson et al.’s (1998) respondents

undertook temporary work included what role job loss, being laid off or a tight

labour market took in their decision to undertake temporary work, or how difficult it

was to find permanent work. It is suggested here that those involuntary temporaries

were most probably concerned about the risk of unemployment. Three explanations

are provided to support such an assertion.

First, temporary employment substantially raises the risk of unemployment generally

(Green, Felstead & Burchell, 2000). Second, job loss and perceived labour market

conditions, presumably reflecting job opportunities, are stressful to individuals in

situations that are uncertain (Leana & Feldman, 1992). Many of the conditions of

temporary employment are in fact uncertain. (Both of these issues are discussed in

more detail in the next section). Third, alternative job opportunities influence job

satisfaction directly, such that employees with few options express greater

satisfaction with their job situation (Hulin, Roznowski & Hachiya, 1985). To

74

explain, in a tight labour market a job change is more risky and presumably less

attractive. Such conditions would make workers value the protection of their

organisation’s internal labour market all the more, increasing their job satisfaction.

Organisations provide no such protection for temporary employees, however. For

temporary employees with arguably less certainty about employment continuity than

permanent workers, fewer employment options are likely to express themselves in

lower job satisfaction, an outcome in line with Ellingson et al.’s findings (1998).

Even so, Ellingson et al. (1998) provide no theoretical or empirical explanations as to

how they identified the voluntary and involuntary reasons they measured to assess

why their respondents decided to work in temporary positions.

Although not cited by Ellingson et al. (1998), there is ample support for that study’s

conceptualization of voluntary and involuntary justifications why some individual

might prefer temporary work to permanent work. Some scholars (Appelbaum, 1992;

Davis-Blake & Uzzi, 1993; Piore & Sable, 1984; Tilly, 1992b) favour the dual labour

market perspective, which divides the workforce into core and peripheral workers.

Such a view contends that stable “primary” jobs are out-of-reach for some, forced

into “temporary” secondary jobs, through limited job alternatives. Generally, such

jobs are concentrated in low-skill and low-wage occupations and industries (Dale &

Bamford, 1988; Ferber & Waldfogel, 1998; Gottfried, 1992; Nollen, 1996; Nollen &

Axel, 1996). Geary (1992) for instance, describes workplaces where the fear of

being disposed of is a significant factor in motivating temporary employees to work

hard and to readily consent to do overtime, for there were few, if any, alternative

opportunities for gainful employment in the area. In fact, surveys of temporary

workers repeatedly indicate there is a strong preference among such workers for

traditional jobs (e.g., 63% and 60% - Cohany, 1996, 1998 respectively; 60% - Forde,

2001; 67% - Morris & Vekker, 2001), with the most common reason cited for

undertaking temporary work being “it is the only type of work I could find”.

Others (Gannon, 1984; Garsten, 1999) claim temporary employment is a choice

rather than a necessity, with flexibility enhancing personal control. Some individuals

prefer temporary work as it allows the freedom to choose when, and where, to work

(Hunter & MacInnes, 1991). The opportunity to acquire skills and experience are

75

other suggested primary motivators for temporary workers (Carey & Hazelbaker,

1986; Lenz, 1996; Tregaskis, 1997; Von Hippel et al., 1997). Advocates of such a

‘free agent’ perspective (Kunda, Barley & Evans, 2002) argue that temporary

workers have the freedom to refuse work; and this employment arrangement can

provide the flexibility necessary to balance work with other commitments, such as

study or family care, or other interests (Barker, 1993; Cohany, 1996; Olesen &

Katsuranis, 1978). One way to accommodate both the empowering (voluntary) and

the constraining (involuntary) dimensions of temporary employment is to accept that

there is a diversity of job types within the temporary employment industry.

Some researchers suggest that temporary jobs are polarised with low-skilled low

paying positions at one end of the spectrum, and high-skilled high paying jobs at the

other (Carnoy, Castells & Benner, 1997; Cohen & Haberfeld, 1993; Lepak & Snell,

1999; Nollen & Axel, 1996; Peck & Theodore, 1998; Tregaskis, 1997). Rather than

temporary employment agencies being passive intermediaries in the labour market,

agencies have shaped how employers use temporary labour (Forde, 2001). Peck and

Theodore (1998) for example, examined the restructuring of Chicago’s temporary

employment industry. Operating in an environment of fluctuating labour demand

and an excess labour supply, some agencies provide clients with numerical flexibility

by supplying generically skilled “substitute” employees. Such workers fill the

lowest-paid and lowest-skilled parts of the labour market. Top-end agencies, in

contrast, service their clients instead in terms of qualitative flexibility, offering

temporary specialists as “adjuncts” to the client’s own personnel (Peck & Theodore,

1998).

A case study in Silicon Valley (Carnoy et al., 1997) found a similar bifurcation of

flexible labour markets. For some individuals temporary work represents a new form

of entrepreneurship, where workers market their skills among various buyers (either

employment agencies or organisations). Rather than blue-collar, administrative, or

clerical support positions such roles include managerial, technical, and professional

appointments. Highly mobile between firms, these highly skilled elite workers want

independence and have very little interest in job security (Carnoy et al., 1997). Like

permanent employment, temporary employment appears, therefore, to have its own

primary and secondary sectors (Kunda et al., 2002).

76

Recognising that heterogeneity exists within temporary work arrangements, Marler,

Barringer and Milkovich (2002) proposed and empirically tested the existence of two

types of temporary agency employees – traditional and boundaryless. What

differentiates these types of temporary workers is their preference for temporary

work, skill level, and work experience. Traditional temporaries are those that

possess limited skills and hope for standard work within bureaucratic organisations.

In contrast, boundaryless temporaries view their temporary project commitments as

career steps, increasing their value and marketability with each move across

employers (Marler et al., 2002). Boundaryless temporaries are comfortable with

multiple employers who provide opportunities to increase skills and knowledge

(Baker & Aldrich, 1996), thereby enhancing income security for such temporaries.

Traditional temporaries alternately, believe it is a stable employment relationship that

provides opportunities for income security and skill development (Marler et al.,

2002).

Using cluster analysis Marler et al. (2002) found that their various measures of skill

(i.e., education, age, and occupation) were not independent of their measures of

employment status preference with two samples – regional and national.

Specifically, temporaries in jobs requiring lower skills and education were

significantly less likely to value the flexibility of temporary work, and generally did

not prefer temporary work. At the same time, those primarily in managerial and

professional temporary jobs generally preferred temporary roles. This group, the

boundaryless temporaries, also reported significantly more job alternatives than the

traditional temporaries, as hypothesized (Marler et al., 2002). Such findings

therefore, support the polarised view of types of temporary jobs and link worker

preferences to between group differences.

Notwithstanding the links demonstrated between the type of temporary job

(traditional or boundaryless) and worker preferences for temporary work, the volition

studies discussed earlier (i.e., Ellingson et al., 1998; Feldman et al., 1995; Krausz,

2000; Krausz et al., 1995) demonstrate within group differences. Each of these

studies used homogenous samples from traditional temporary job types, such as

clerical, light industrial, bookkeepers and secretaries. Each study reported sufficient

77

variation within their samples to identify work attitude differences between those

who chose temporary work over permanent positions, and those who did not.

In sum, therefore, studies within the volition stream of temporary employment

research provide consistent empirical evidence that those temporary workers who

believe they freely choose that form of employment have more positive work

attitudes. For instance, Feldman and his associates (Feldman, 1990, 1995; Feldman

et al., 1994, 1995) demonstrate that voluntary temporaries are satisfied with their

jobs. Inconsistencies in the measurement of ‘choice’ amongst these studies,

however, make disentangling the effects of different reasons for preferring temporary

work difficult. A sense of freedom, flexible hours, and variety are some of the

‘voluntary’ reasons commonly cited. The type of job, in terms of occupation and

required skill-level, limits or enhances the extent of choice an individual perceives

they may have in terms of employment alternatives. A lack of other employment

alternatives and the desire for job permanency are generally accepted as

‘involuntary’ explanations why individuals accept temporary work reluctantly. A

permanent job alternately, can lessen the importance of employment alternatives, as

well as provide greater predictability and stability of employment: two employment

characteristics, discussed in the next section, not usually associated with temporary

work.

Predictability and job continuity for temporary workers

Aspects of temporary work that are unpredictable or uncertain include the nature of

the work: which specific job assignments are to be performed and with which client

organisation the worker is to be engaged (Olesen & Katsuranis, 1978). As well,

employment arrangements such as, the onset of employment, number of hours

required, and assignment length, are likely to be unpredictable or uncertain (Beard &

Edwards, 1995; Feldman & Doerpinghaus, 1992a; Feldman et al., 1994; Forde, 2001;

Ryan & Schmit, 1996). Since individuals typically experience uncertainty as

aversive (White, 1959), it is likely that the attitudes and job-related behaviours of

temporary workers are related to scheduling stability and the predictability of hours

worked (Barling & Gallagher, 1996).

78

Prediction concerns the individual’s ability to forecast the frequency, timing,

duration, and quality of events in their environment (Sutton & Kahn, 1987). For

Milliken (1987) there are three types of environmental uncertainty: state, effect and

response. State uncertainty arises when an individual cannot predict how

components of the environment might be changing. Effect uncertainty occurs when

an individual lacks the ability to predict the impact of environmental change. And

response uncertainty takes place when an individual lacks knowledge of response

options or the ability to predict the consequences of a response choice.

Generally, in the terms of temporary employees’ working schedules therefore, there

is much uncertainty (state uncertainty) as to when their current assignment will end.

Unlike permanent employment relationships, there is no explicit or implicit

expectation of longer-term or “ongoing” employment (Gallagher & McLean Parks,

2001). As for the impact of the current assignment ending (effect uncertainty), there

is uncertainty at to whether a new assignment might be found. Regarding the

consequences (response uncertainty) of such uncertainty, temporary workers are

usually uncertain at to whether their nominated working schedule choices facilitate

or preclude them from the opportunity of attaining their next assignment (Olesen &

Katsuranis, 1978; Rogers & Henson, 1997). Thus, whilst temporary employees may

have varying degrees of control over their working hours and locations they are

unlikely to have the necessary knowledge with which to predict the frequency,

timing, and duration of future job assignments (Purcell & Purcell, 1999). Permanent

employees in contrast, in the short-term at least, have comparatively predicable work

schedules. Compared to permanent employees therefore, temporary workers

generally operate in uncertain working environments.

According to some researchers (Barling & Kelloway, 1996; Heaney Israel & House,

1994; Jacobson, 1991; Joelson & Wahlquist, 1987; Roskies & Louis-Guerin, 1990;

Tucker, 1993), environmental uncertainty is one of the most salient features of job

insecurity. Generally, individuals prefer secure employment since it is on that basis

they can undertake longer-term financial, personal and family commitments (De

Ruyter & Burgess, 2000). Temporary workers, usually, have neither explicit nor

implicit contracts for ongoing employment (Nollen & Axel, 1996). Subject to

79

satisfactory performance, threats to job continuity for permanent employees arise

only from one source: their employer. Job threats for temporary workers though,

stem from a number of sources.

Not only are temporary workers open to their employment agency’s ability to

dismiss or lay them off without great difficulty or cost (Campbell, 1997; Romeyn,

1992), temporaries are also vulnerable to their client organisation’s need to continue

to require their services, irrespective of satisfactory performance. Job continuity at

the client organisation therefore, is precarious. A second source of employment

vulnerability emerges from the employment agencies. Given that employment

agencies maintain an oversupply of workers in their databases to avoid disappointing

a client (Forde, 2001; Peck & Theodore, 1998), a temporary employee is, in effect,

repeatedly competing against a group of other similarly skilled workers for each new

assignment. Job threats thus continually arise from agencies’ seeking out their most

competent workers to satisfy their client organisations. Lastly, the agency itself is

vulnerable to changes in the nature and range of their client relationships. Even with

a commercial contract between a temporary hire agency and their client

organisations, contracts can be, and often are, terminated at the end of the contract

period of usually one and sometimes two years (Purcell & Purcell, 1999). Threats to

job continuity for temporary employees therefore, are much more complex than job

loss threats for permanent workers.

Three views exist on the extent of temporary workers’ job insecurity. First, a

number of authors (e.g., Appelbaum, 1992; Beard & Edwards, 1995) believe that job

insecurity is particularly strong for temporary workers as the probability of job loss

or contract non-renewal (Aronsson, 1999; Dex, Willis, Paterson & Sheppard, 2000;

Parker, Griffin, Sprigg & Wall, 2002) is very high. Second, Harris and Greising

(1998) in contrast suggest that having multiple contracts with different organisations

might be far safer than having a single “contract” with one organisation, as do

permanent workers. Third, some researchers argue that temporary workers expect

job insecurity (Jacobson & Hartley, 1991; Pearce, 1998; Sloboda, 1999). The

difference therefore, between the level of expected job security and perceived job

security is less remarkable for temporary workers, thereby producing reactions less

strong than those generated by permanent workers (Klein Hesselink & Van Vuuren,

80

1999). Job insecurity unavoidably, is an integral part of being a temporary employee

– by definition their work assignments are temporary. Polivka (1996, p. 10) even

defines temporary workers as those “who did not expect their jobs to last.” Thus

whether job insecurity is more, less, of equal importance to temporary workers as it

is to permanent workers is theoretically unclear.

As argued in the preceding section on volition research, temporaries who believe

they are forced into such work are likely to be concerned about the risk of

unemployment. It may be therefore, that the extent of choice a temporary worker

believes they have in working in temporary employment that influences the extent of

their concern about their job security - in other words, how they might react. Little

research however, is available examining how job loss threats influence the work

attitudes and behaviours of temporaries (De Witte, 1999; Kinnuen & Nätti, 1994;

Sloboda, 1999). Findings of studies that examine job insecurity using temporary

employees in their samples are discussed in the next section.

Job insecurity and temporary employment

One study amongst temporary employees supports the first view that job insecurity

for such workers is high. Research (Forde, 2001) in a labour market with a large

supply of available temporaries and a rapidly fluctuating demand for such employees

concluded that their sample faced a high level of job insecurity. Tenure length with

individual employers was typically short, as was the length of their job assignments.

When asked to select the most important disadvantages of temporary work the lack

of predictability and the length of job assignments were the most commonly cited

features. Steady or continuous employment was enjoyed by but a few, mostly those

who never turned down or refused work even when offered at short notice or

involving low-skilled, low-paying work. By maintaining a surplus of available

workers, the agencies ensured that the employment patterns for most of the

temporaries were punctuated by periods of involuntary inactivity, with one worker

estimating that approximately half of his time was spent ‘waiting by the phone

between assignments’ (Forde, 2001, p. 640). Under such conditions then, it is not

unexpected that some 64 per cent of respondents were looking for full-time

81

permanent positions. Forde’s (2001) study, whilst providing support for the view

that temporary work affords little job security, did not directly measure workers’ job

insecurity perceptions or their work reactions.

A study that did directly measure temporary workers’ perceived job insecurity and

their work reactions took the third view, that temporary workers expect job

insecurity. Given that work assignments for temporary workers are by definition

temporary, Sloboda (1999) argues that the psychological mechanisms affecting job

insecurity perceptions might not apply to temporary workers who are aware that their

job assignments are to end in the near future. Temporary workers after all, accept

their employment relationship with full knowledge of their lack of job security

(Pearce, 1998). To that end, Sloboda (1999) investigated the effects of job insecurity

amongst a sample of temporary employees in terms of their psychological contracts,

operationalizing job insecurity perceptions as ‘the desire for job permanence’.

Compared to those temporaries who highly desired job permanence, the temporary

workers not seeking permanent work were more involved in their temporary jobs.

Such a finding is not inconsistent with Feldman et al.’s (1995) results noted earlier;

that permanent job-seeking temporaries are less committed and less satisfied.

Even so, operationalizing job insecurity, as ‘the desire for job permanence’ may be

conceptually unsound. Whilst greater job security is a likely motive for a desire for

job permanence, other factors may trigger that desire also. Permanent jobs for

instance, provide a range of non-wage benefits and more access to training and

promotion opportunities (Burgess, 1996; Christensen, 1987; Feldman & Klaas, 1996;

Gannon, 1974). As noted earlier, temporary workers operate in uncertain

environments. A permanent job therefore, would restore some predictability into

work schedules for such workers, thereby alleviating the uncertainty. Thus, it may

be that a high desire for job permanence is a necessary, but insufficient indicator of

the extent to which temporary employees find their level of job security satisfactory.

Interestingly, ‘the desire for job permanence’ variable is also used in a Finnish study

(Kinnunen & Nätti, 1994) to examine job insecurity perceptions among temporary

workers. The construct though, is not used to assess job insecurity. Perceived job

insecurity is measured by a set of five dichotomous questions to assess the perceived

82

probability of losing one’s job. ‘Desire for job permanence’ is used to differentiate

‘voluntary’ (= doesn’t want a permanent job) and ‘involuntary’ (= didn’t get a

permanent job) temporary employees, just as others (Feldman et al., 1995; Krausz,

2000) have done. Data from voluntary temporary employees and permanent

employees were then analysed as one group, with involuntary temporary employees

as a comparison group. Earlier unemployment experiences and temporary

employment relationships were identified as the best predictors of high job

insecurity. The remainder of the findings, that job insecurity negatively affected

work behaviour, were consistent with previous studies (cf., Ashford, Lee & Bobko,

1989). Like Forde’s (2001) results therefore, this study supports the idea that job

insecurity is a concern for temporary employees.

Yet another study (Klein Hesselink & Van Vuuren, 1999), supporting the view that

temporary workers endure high job insecurity, took a comparison approach.

Permanent workers’ and temporaries’ job insecurity were assessed by asking

respondents whether they were ‘worried’, ‘a bit worried’ or ‘not worried’ about their

job security. Then their responses were compared. Job insecurity and work status

were related to the extent of health complaints and level of organisational

commitment reported. Temporary workers reported the most concern about their job

security, compared to part-time and full-time permanent respondents. Besides this,

the temporary workers also provided the lowest organisational commitment scores

and the highest scores on health complaints. Notwithstanding these outcomes,

almost 40 per cent of those surveyed indicated that they freely chose temporary work

(Klein Hesselink & Van Vuuren, 1999). An examination of how respondents’ level

of volition interacted with their degree of job insecurity and their health and work

outcomes though, was not undertaken.

Another study (Parker et al., 2002) taking a comparison approach showed that

temporary job status was related to reduced perceptions of job security. Two sets of

data were collected over an 18 month period from an all male sample where it was

widely understood that most temporary contract employees, subject to satisfactory

performance, were eventually offered a permanent position when it became

available. The results showed that temporaries had lower job security than

permanents at Time 1. As well, temporaries at Time 1 who became permanent at

83

Time 2 reported increased job security. Also supportive of the view that temporaries

have less job security than permanents was their finding that new temporaries at

Time 2 had lower job security than any of the permanent employees. Job status

preferences though were not assessed in the study, and since the researchers note that

local unemployment rates at the time were high (Parker et al., 2002) it remains an

empirical question as to what degree the lack of choice in job status influenced

respondent job security perceptions.

Another approach to understand the effects of job insecurity on temporary employees

involves measuring such employees’ satisfaction with their job security. Whilst

collectively these studies suggest that temporary workers are less satisfied with their

job security, methodological differences amongst the studies make drawing firm

conclusions difficult. One such study examined the effects of job peripherality, in

terms of hours worked and regularity of employment, and personal characteristics on

part-time employees’ job satisfaction (Hom, 1979). Steady (continuously employed)

part-timers were more satisfied with their job security than seasonal part-time

employees. Once dissimilarities in demographics between the two types of

employees were controlled for, the effects of work status disappeared, however.

Another study (Allan & Sienko, 1997) while comparing job attribute perceptions and

internal work motivation between permanent and temporary workers found that

temporaries reported significantly less satisfaction with their job security.

Respondent demographic characteristics though, went unmeasured. So whether

these job security satisfaction differences would be retained after controlling for the

effects of demographic dissimilarity is unknown.

Still within the job security satisfaction stream of research, Krausz et al.’ s study

(1995) controlled for the effects of age and marital status, as well as differentiating

between voluntary and involuntary temporaries while examining the influence of

reward differences between permanent and temporary employees. Permanent

employees were more satisfied with their extrinsic rewards (including job security,

fringe benefits, and working with a steady boss) than either group of temporary

employees. Voluntary temporaries were lower in their desire for extrinsic rewards,

however, than either the involuntary temporaries or permanent employees. Even so,

after statistically controlling for respondent’s level of reward desirability and

84

demographic effects, the finding that permanents were more satisfied with their

extrinsic rewards remained highly significant (Krausz et al., 1995). The extent to

which satisfaction with job security, in particular, contributed to the global measure

of extrinsic rewards though, is not known.

More recently, De Witte and Näswall (2003) examined job insecurity data from four

European countries. Temporary employees had significantly higher job insecurity

than permanents in three out of the four countries. Interactive effects between

temporary job status and job insecurity were also analyzed. Job insecurity was found

to be only associated with a reduction in job satisfaction and organisational

commitment among permanents. It was concluded that since temporaries do not

expect job security in their psychological contract the detrimental effects of job

insecurity are less for them compared to permanents. The study noted however that

whether temporary employment was voluntary or involuntary was unmeasured.

To sum up, even though some researchers (Jacobson & Hartley, 1991; Pearce, 1998;

Sloboda, 1999) contend that job insecurity is an expected feature of temporary work,

thereby being less detrimental for temporary workers, it appears there is consistent

evidence that job insecurity does correspond with less than favourable outcomes for

both permanent and temporary workers alike. From the limited collection of studies

discussed that investigate job insecurity effects amongst temporary employees there

is support for the view that perceived job insecurity levels for temporary and

permanent employees are significantly different (e.g., Klein Hesselink & Van

Vuuren, 1999). Moreover, these studies also support the view that job insecurity for

temporary workers is high (Forde, 2001; Kinnunen & Nätti, 1994; Parker et al.,

2002).

Not only is job insecurity high for temporary workers but also, Krausz et al.’ s (1995)

findings suggest that whether or not a temporary has chosen temporary work appears

to impact on the extent of perceived job insecurity. Voluntary temporaries were

lower in their desire for extrinsic rewards, one of which was job security. Even

though the gap between desired and received reward might be smaller for voluntary

temporary employees, in line with Klein Hesselink and Van Vuuren’s (1999)

suggestion, the lack of job security appears to influence work outcomes (Krausz et

85

al., 1995). But the extent of choice a temporary worker believes they have in

accepting temporary work is not the only likely consideration in their level of job

insecurity.

As noted previously, Harris and Greising (1998) suggest that having multiple

contracts with different organisations might make temporary employees feel safer

than having a single “contract” with one employer like permanent workers. Stated

differently, temporaries might believe they have more work alternatives than their

permanent counterparts. Security for them perhaps is not about keeping a job, but

how effortlessly another job can be found (Kunda et al., 2002). If we accept that

temporary workers have greater job insecurity than permanent workers, as the

literature seems to suggest, the effects of that job insecurity should be less for those

who perceive they have more job alternatives. With more work opportunities, the

termination of a particular work assignment would be less troublesome. How this

might, in turn, influence work outcomes is also unknown. More discussion on the

influence of other work alternatives on job insecurity reactions was provided in the

preceding Chapter.

Rationale for study one

From the literature we see that early research on temporary employment was

unsystematic and the findings inconclusive. Research comparing part-time and full-

time employees made the assumption that there is significantly more heterogeneity

between full-timers and part-timers, and considerably more homogeneity within each

of group of employees (Barling & Gallagher, 1996). Such thinking appears to

underlie some of the temporary employment literature. This might explain then, why

explanations based on analyses of demographic concentrations failed to produce

consistent findings in understanding temporary workers’ work attitudes and

behaviours. In a similar way, the jobs of temporary workers were also assumed to be

homogenous – requiring few skills, receiving low pay, and no benefits (Kalleberg et

al., 2000). Like permanent jobs though, temporary employment appears to have both

primary and secondary sectors, with the differences between sectors as pronounced

as the differences within each sector (Kunda et al., 2002).

86

The purpose of study one is to examine job insecurity perceptions in a sample of

temporary and permanent employees. Both within group and between group

differences will be analysed. Of the job insecurity and temporary employment

literature discussed only three studies (De Witte & Näswall, 2003; Klein Hesselink &

Van Vuuren, 1999; Parker et al., 2002) make such a comparison. As stated earlier,

none of these studies examined how the respondents’ level of volition interacted with

their degree of job insecurity and their health and work outcomes. Additionally,

whilst Kinnunen and Nätti’s study (1994) differentiated temporary employees in

terms of their desire for permanent work, data outcome comparisons were not made

within the temporary employee sample. The current project addresses these issues.

Two limitations acknowledged in Kinnunen and Nätti’s job insecurity (1994) study

are also addressed in the current research. First, as secondary data was analysed

personality characteristics were not assessed (Kinnuen & Nätti, 1994). Both locus of

control and negative affectivity, two characteristics previously demonstrated to

influence perceived job insecurity are measured and controlled for in study one. The

importance of these characteristics to job insecurity perceptions were explained in

the preceding Chapter.

Second, the way in which job insecurity is measured in the current project conforms

to extant job insecurity literature, assessing the probability of a job loss. Klein

Hesselink and Van Vuuren (1999) for instance, assessed job insecurity by asking if

respondents were ‘worried’, ‘a bit worried’ or ‘not worried’ about their job security.

Although Kinnunen and Nätti’s study (1994) measured job insecurity as the

likelihood of a job threat, accounting for the severity of the job loss should also be

considered when measuring job insecurity (Greenhalgh & Rosenblatt, 1984; Roskies

& Louis-Guerin, 1990). The current project addresses this shortcoming by

considering a number of potential moderators of relations between job insecurity and

work outcomes.

Whether, on balance, temporary employment typically benefits or harms workers is a

matter of considerable debate (Kalleberg et al., 2000). Studies within the work status

congruence and volition streams of temporary employment research though, appear

87

to provide some consistent findings. Namely, workers who have jobs that match

their preferred job status have more positive work attitudes. Also workers who

believe they freely choose temporary work are more satisfied with their work. What

role job insecurity perceptions have in motivating, or constraining temporary

employees though is less clear. Based on the limited research undertaken regarding

how perceived job insecurity influences temporary workers, the current research

project poses the following research questions:

Does perceived job insecurity influence the work outcomes and psychological well-

being of permanent and temporary workers to the same extent?

To what extend does perceived choice in job status influence employee reactions to

perceived job insecurity?

Final research model and hypotheses for study one

A preliminary model (Fig. 2-1) guiding the current study was proposed in the

preceding Chapter. Figure 3-1 shows the final research model by adding two

variables: temporary job status and choice in job status. Temporary job status is

predicted to have direct effects on job insecurity. The model also shows that

temporary job status is expected to act as a joint moderator of reactions to job

insecurity. Three of those joint moderators – choice in job status, employability, and

job dependency – were selected as being individual characteristics over which

individuals might have a degree of control. Two sources of social support, each one

acting jointly with temporary job status, are also proposed to influence reactions to

job insecurity. Hypotheses for the proposed model are then presented.

88

Fig. 3-1 Final research model – Study 1

Job status

(permanent or

temporary

Choice in

job status

Employability Job

dependency

• locus of control • negative affect

Psychological well-being

• age • gender • educational level • tenure

Job insecurity

Job satisfaction Organisational commitment (Affective & continuance)

Contextual performance

Social Support

Turnover intentions

(Organisational & Family)

Intention to change job status

89

Reactions to perceived job insecurity are discussed at length in Chapter 2. Only a

brief summary therefore, is now presented to support each of the proposed

hypotheses. Empirical evidence consistently shows that job insecurity has significant

negative effects on the psychological well-being of employees (e.g., De Witte, 1999;

Maurier & Northcott, 2000; Mohr, 2000; Kuhnert & Palmer, 1991; Roskies & Louis-

Guerin, 1990; Roskies et al., 1993). Significant negative correlations between

perceived job insecurity and job satisfaction are also well documented (e.g., Ameen

et al., 1995; Barling & Kelloway, 1996; Heaney et al., 1994); O'Quin & LoTempio,

1998; Van Vuuren et al., 1991a). High job insecurity, thus should relate negatively

to psychological well-being (1a) and job satisfaction (1b).

Employees exchange their labour not only for their wages, but also for future

opportunities (Greenhalgh, 1983b). Organisations signal their long-term

commitment to such future opportunities with security of employment (Pfeffer,

1994). Employees therefore, might interpret threats to job security as a violation of

such commitment, necessitating employees to adjust their commitment level to their

organisation. Indeed research supports the notion that feelings of job insecurity are

negatively related to organisational commitment. Some studies (Ameen et al., 1995;

Ashford et al., 1989; Rosenblatt & Ruvio, 1996) measured such commitment with

Mowday et al.’s organisational commitment scale (1979), whereas other studies

(Kuhnert & Vance, 1992; Van Vuuren et al., 1991a) made use of Cook, Hepworth,

Wall and Warr’s (1981) scale. Both these measures though, assess only affective

attachment to an organisation (Allen & Meyer, 1990). Like job satisfaction then,

high job insecurity should relate negatively to affective commitment (1c).

Some job insecurity scholars predict that insecure workers will expend less effort

towards their organisation (Ashford et al., 1989; Greenhalgh & Rosenblatt, 1984).

Even so, anxiety such as that arising from job insecurity can increase cognitive

arousal, motivating greater job effort (Eysenck & Calvo, 1992) so employees can

demonstrate their worthiness to retain their threatened jobs (Nolan et al., 2000). Not

surprisingly the effect of job insecurity on job performance is unclear. Some

observers (Ashford et al., 1989; O’Quin & LoTempio, 1998) find no relationship,

90

while other researchers (Abramis, 1994; Armstrong-Stassen, 1993) report a negative

relationship. As well, work effort is shown to be greater at moderate levels of job

insecurity, rather than at low or at high levels (Brockner et al., 1992). Whereas a

decrease in work effort for in-role tasks may target an individual for potential lay-off,

adjustments to extra-role behaviours carry no such risk of sanction. Extra-role

behaviours are after all discretionary (Organ, 1988), and employees can withhold

such behaviours without negative consequences. As individuals perform extra-role

behaviours out of gratitude or a desire to reciprocate feelings of job satisfaction

(Organ, 1977; Organ & Ryan, 1995), when an organisation reduces that satisfaction

by threatening job loss, it is likely employees will engage in fewer extra-role

behaviours (1d).

Just how job insecurity relates to continuance commitment is less certain.

Continuance commitment concerns commitment based on an employee’s recognition

of the costs associated with leaving an organisation. Employees with a strong sense

of continuance commitment stay with their organisation because they ‘have to’

(Allen & Meyer, 1996). As noted earlier, a defining characteristic of job insecurity is

uncertainty and ambiguity (Barling & Kelloway, 1996; Joelson & Wahlquist, 1987;

Roskies & Louis-Guerin, 1990). Some individuals seek to avoid such situations.

Hofstede (1980) argues that those high in uncertainty avoidance avoid risk and seek

greater career stability. Such an aversion to risk together with a fear of failure for

risking employment elsewhere (Chew & Putti, 1995) are likely to encourage an

organisational attachment based on an individual’s calculation of loss (Clugston,

Howell & Dorfman, 2000). In fact, uncertainty avoidance is significantly positively

related to continuance commitment (Clugston et al., 2000). Therefore you might

expect that employees perceiving high job insecurity to develop higher continuance

commitment than employees under conditions of low job insecurity (1e).

Finally, turnover intentions are consistently positively associated with perceived job

insecurity (Ameen, et al., 1995; Ashford et al., 1989; Barling & Kelloway, 1996;

Dekker & Schaufeli, 1995; O'Quin & LoTempio, 1998; Rosenblatt & Ruvio, 1996;

Tivendell & Bourbonnais, 2000). Therefore it is expected that employees perceiving

high job insecurity will indicated higher turnover intentions (1f).Based on these

findings, and the review earlier in this Chapter, the following hypothesis is put forth:

91

H1: Regardless of job status, the higher the job insecurity the lower the employee's

psychological well-being (1a); job satisfaction (1b); affective commitment (1c);

contextual performance (1d); and the higher the employee's continuance

commitment (1e) and intention to quit (1f).

Earlier in this Chapter, studies that have examined perceived job insecurity amongst

temporary employees were reviewed. Some researchers (Jacobson & Hartley, 1991;

Pearce, 1998; Sloboda, 1999) suggest that job insecurity is an anticipated

characteristic of temporary work. Being “let go”, while problematical, is part of a

temporary worker’s expectations (Bishop, Goldsby & Neck, 2002); therefore job

insecurity should be less harmful for temporary workers. On the other hand there is

some evidence that job insecurity is a concern for temporary workers.

Using temporary employee only samples, both Kinnunen and Nätti (1994) and Forde

(2001) concluded that temporary work affords little job security. Studies that

compare permanent and temporary workers’ job security report that temporary

workers are significantly less satisfied (Allan & Sienko, 1997) and more concerned

(Klein Hesselink & Van Vuuren, 1999; Mauno & Kinnunen, 2002) with their job

security. Felstead, Krahn and Powell (1999) also report that temporary employees

feel less secure than their full-time and permanent colleagues. Another comparison

study amongst tenured and non-tenured academic staff also provides supporting

evidence for such a view. After a period of significant university budget cuts,

Adkins et al. (2001) report that tenure status is a significant predictor of job

insecurity, such that tenured faculty members had lower levels of job insecurity than

untenured faculty.

Indirect corroboration that temporary workers experience more job insecurity than

their permanent counterparts is provided in a study examining midlife educational

participation and labour market vulnerability (Elman & O’Rand, 2002). The

research challenges the assumption that early life educational achievement provides

labour market advantages that protect middle-aged workers with long-term career

and employment security. Elman and O’Rand argue that labour market conditions

promote concerns about job security for workers over 35 years of age prompting re-

92

entry into education programs. Respondents were not asked to indicate their job

status. However, data from adults aged 35 to 61 years (n = 9,684) show that

individuals with implicit long-term employment contracts – as indicated by the

provision of employee benefits – endure less job insecurity. Further analyses

indicated that workers from occupational sectors with high contingent employment

rates (assessed using secondary data) experienced more job insecurity (Elman &

O’Rand, 2002). Such findings appear to add weight to the idea that temporary

workers experience greater job insecurity than permanent employees.

Further indirect support for the view that temporary workers experience concern

about their job continuity is available in job loss studies. Job loss sensitises workers

to job threats and results in high job insecurity (Kinnunen & Nätti, 1994).

Individuals who experience job loss tend to believe that subsequent employment

opportunities are less secure (Cavanaugh & Noe, 1999; Kinnunen & Nätti, 1994).

Job losers are more likely than non-losers to be in temporary jobs (Faber, 1999).

Also, amongst the long-term unemployed who find jobs, Halvorsen (1998) shows

that two-thirds of those finding temporary work regard their jobs as insecure,

whereas less than one-fifth of those who find permanent jobs feel insecure. Thus,

temporary workers who have encountered job loss are likely to feel highly vulnerable

to future job loss. As the research reviewed in the preceding discussion does not

support that temporaries and permanents have similar levels of job insecurity

(exception noted earlier: Hom, 1979), or that temporaries have lower job insecurity

than permanents (no empirical evidence to date), it is hypothesized that:

H2: Temporary employees are more likely to have higher job insecurity than

permanent employees.

As discussed earlier, employees in jobs that are congruent with their work status

preference are generally more satisfied and psychologically healthier than those

reporting an incongruent work status (Armstrong-Stassen, Horsburgh & Cameron,

1994; Burke & Greenglass, 2000; Lee & Johnson, 1991). Thus the attainment of, or

failure to achieve, a preferred work schedule appears to explain differences in work

outcomes across job status groups.

93

Workers who believe they have voluntarily chosen a type of employment

relationship are more committed to that relationship (Feldman, 1990; McLean Parks,

Kidder & Gallagher, 1998). Studies amongst temporary workers report that

individuals who hold temporary jobs voluntarily have significantly more positive

work attitudes than their involuntary co-worker temporaries (Feldman, Doerpinghaus

& Turnley, 1995; Krausz, Brandwein & Fox, 1995). Krausz (2000) also shows that

temporary employees by choice, who see their temporary job status as a long-term

employment option, are more satisfied and less stressed than either involuntary

temporaries, or those who choose temporary work yet desire permanent work. Under

conditions of job threats then, it might be expected that temporaries by choice would

fare better than those who believe they were forced into such work, as their lack of

desire for permanent work means that temporaries by choice feel less dependent on

their current job situation.

Of interest to the current study is the role that choice concerning job status may play

in influencing the relationship between job insecurity perceptions and work

outcomes. If an individual believes they are “trapped” in a job status not to their

choosing then it is likely that the effects of job insecurity are intensified. For

instance, some individuals may believe their lifestyle choices (e.g., family carer

responsibilities) or fewer job choices, status-wise, limit the types of jobs, and

therefore the number of jobs, available to them. Accordingly, for such individuals to

lose their current job is more serious, as they believe there are fewer potential job

alternatives than for equivalent job losers who are not constrained to only one type of

job status. Similar reasoning applies for those who prefer one type of job status to

another. For those with an incongruent job status, say having a temporary job but

preferring a permanent one, the effects of job insecurity are likely to be magnified.

Based upon such reasoning it is hypothesized that:

H3: Choice in job status and job status together will moderate the effects of job

insecurity. Highly insecure individuals will report lower psychological well-being,

job satisfaction, affective commitment, and contextual performance; and higher

continuance commitment and higher turnover intentions if they are “trapped” into a

certain job status (i.e., low choice/high preference for permanent work), though these

effects will depend upon current job status. For example, a temporary that prefers

94

permanent work, but cannot obtain such a position, is “doubly disadvantaged” in a

highly insecure job, as compared with a permanent worker who at least, for the

present, is satisfying their need for a permanent job. Thus, when choice is low and

job insecurity high, temporaries will report higher turnover intentions and intention

to change job status and lower psychological well-being, job satisfaction, and

affective commitment, contextual performance and continuance commitment than

permanent employees (3) (High job insecurity X Low choice X job status).

As noted in Chapter 2, the greater the number of perceived work alternatives an

individual possesses, the greater their perceived ease of movement (March & Simon,

1958). Employees thus who perceive they have limited occupational mobility (or

employment security) are likely to have more severe reactions to a job loss threat

than those who believe they are more mobile (Greenhalgh & Rosenblatt, 1984). It is

the perceived lack of control that increases the individual’s sense of vulnerability

(Greenhalgh & Sutton, 1991). Of interest to the current study is the role that

employability might play in influencing the relationship between perceived job

insecurity and work outcomes.

When job insecurity is low, an individual’s ability to find alternative employment is

not so crucial, as they can remain in their current job for as long as they desire. For

the job insecure however, the ability to find a replacement job is important. A

worker’s ability to choose alternative employment can significantly influence their

attitudes and behaviour (Cappelli & Sherer, 1990). Workers without attractive

employment alternatives may feel they have no option but to maintain their existing

relationship with their employer (Rousseau, 1995). A number of studies discussed

earlier, with samples of permanent employees, suggest that an individual’s perceived

prospects in the labour market, their “employability”, influence their reactions to

their job insecurity. For instance, “alternatives in the labour market” alleviated

strains (Büssing, 1999) and psychosomatic complaints (Büssing, 1999; Mohr, 2000).

Kuhnert and Vance (1992) also demonstrate the moderating effects of employment

security, such that the job-insecure reported more psychological adjustment

problems, particularly if they also reported employment insecurity. Thus it appears

that job insecurity perceptions and employability interact to give differential effects

on employee outcomes.

95

As stated earlier, Harris and Greising (1998) suggest that temporary workers might

feel safer than permanent employees. Temporaries, having multiple contracts with

different organisations might believe they have more work alternatives than their

permanent counterparts. Kunda, Barley and Evans (2002) suggest that job security

for temporaries is perhaps not about keeping a job, but how effortlessly another job

can be found. No studies though have compared whether this might be the case. It is

not unreasonable then to speculate that job status might also have differential effects

on how employability interacts with job insecurity perceptions. Based upon the

limited literature and reasoned speculation, the following hypotheses are put forth:

H4: Temporary employees are more likely to report higher employability than

permanent employees (4a). In addition, employability and job status together will

moderate the effects of job insecurity. Highly insecure individuals will report higher

psychological well-being, job satisfaction, affective commitment, and turnover

intentions; and lower contextual performance and continuance commitment when

they feel comparatively resilient to job threats due to their high employability,

though these effects will depend upon current job status. For example, a temporary

who is vulnerable to job loss (high job insecurity) yet believes a replacement job is

easily obtained (high employability) is less likely to feel “bound” (continuance

commitment) to, or less likely to perform extra-role activities (contextual

performance) for, their current organisation than a permanent employee. Thus, when

both employability and job insecurity are high, temporaries will report higher

psychological well-being, job satisfaction, affective commitment, turnover

intentions, and intention to change job status; and lower contextual performance and

continuance commitment than permanent employees (4b) (High job insecurity X

High employability X job status).

Greenhalgh and Rosenblatt (1984) argue that individuals differ in the importance

they attribute to their work situation. Work serves important economic functions in

individual’s lives (e.g., Brief & Aldag, 1989; George & Brief, 1990). As discussed

earlier, workers’ economic dependency on their jobs varies (Doran et al., 1991;

Orpen, 1993) however. Differences in monetary resources (e.g., alternate sources of

income, accumulated savings) and financial needs (e.g., number of dependents, fixed

96

financial obligations), for example, are likely to exist; thereby contributing to

variations in how profound the effects of job loss might be. In job loss studies

(Leana & Feldman, 1992) for instance, financial difficulties strongly affected the

intensity of job loss experiences. Amongst the unemployed, income affects

psychological well-being indirectly via subjectively appraised financial strain

(Whelan, 1992). Economic stress also is demonstrated to contribute to feelings of

job insecurity (Mauno & Kinnunen, 2002). It is anticipated therefore that reactions

to perceived job insecurity might be stronger from workers more financially

dependent on their jobs. Brett et al. (1995) suggest though that the crucial function

of economic dependency arises, not from its direct influence on worker outcomes,

but from its moderating effects between employee attitudes and outcomes. It is

therefore hypothesized that:

H5: Job dependency and job status together will moderate the effects of job

insecurity. Highly insecure individuals will report lower psychological well-being,

job satisfaction, affective commitment, contextual performance and continuance

commitment; and higher turnover intentions if they also report a high economic need

to work (i.e., high job dependency), though these effects will depend upon current

job status. For example, a temporary’s earnings are more variable than those of

permanents (ABS Catalogue 6359.0, August 1998) and therefore is “doubly

disadvantaged” in a highly insecure job, as compared with a permanent worker who

at least, for the present, can more reliably satisfy their economic demands. Thus,

when both job dependency and job insecurity are high, temporaries will report higher

turnover intentions and intention to change job status; and lower psychological well-

being, job satisfaction, and affective commitment, contextual performance and

continuance commitment than permanent employees (5) (High job insecurity X Low

choice X job status).

Social support, as discussed earlier, can provide direct effects on the stressor and the

stress reactions as well as moderating effects between the stressor and stress

reactions (e.g., Beehr, 1998; Cobb, 1979; Cohen & Wills, 1985). The latter view

holds that by making the work situation appear less threatening social support serves

to alleviate the negative consequences of job insecurity (Lim, 1996). Social support,

97

from colleagues and supervisors, has been demonstrated to buffer or moderate

perceptions of job insecurity amongst permanent employees (Borg, & Elizur, 1992;

Borg et al., 2000; Kinnunen & Nätti, 1994; Lim, 1996). For temporary workers,

however, it is likely that the stress of job insecurity is complicated by the social

conditions of their employment arrangements.

Typically separated from other temporaries employed by the same hiring agency,

temporary workers are constrained from forming workplace relationships with their

permanent co-workers (Rogers, 1995). The mobile and transient nature of temporary

employment diminishes the likelihood of developing a sense of workplace

community (Garsten, 1999). With an unknown probability of future contact,

permanent employees are discouraged from all but minimal social interaction with

temporary workers (Rogers, 1995). Temporarily passing through the organisation,

viewed as strangers (Garsten, 1999), these workers can feel detached in terms of their

anonymity with their permanent co-workers. Thus, temporary employees can

experience social isolation and can be “interactionally invisible” (Rogers, 1995). As

permanent employees are more likely to enjoy more opportunities to form workplace

affiliations, and as temporary workers, generally, experience less interaction at work,

it is therefore hypothesized that:

H6: Organisational social support and job status together will moderate the effects

of job insecurity. Highly insecure individuals will report higher psychological well-

being, job satisfaction, affective commitment, and contextual performance; and

lower continuance commitment and turnover intentions when they receive high

social support from their supervisors and peers, though these effects will depend

upon current job status. For example, since temporaries are generally constrained

from forming workplace affiliations temporaries that do in fact experience strong

organisational social support will receive stronger alleviating effects on work

outcomes than permanents. Thus, when both organisational social support and job

insecurity are high, temporaries will report higher psychological well-being, job

satisfaction, affective commitment, contextual performance, and intention to change

job status; and lower continuance commitment and turnover intentions than

permanents (High job insecurity X High organisational social support X job status).

98

H7: Family social support and job status together will moderate the effects of job

insecurity. Highly insecure individuals will report higher psychological well-being,

job satisfaction, affective commitment, and contextual performance; and lower

continuance commitment and turnover intentions when they receive high social

support from their family and friends, though these effects will depend upon current

job status. For example, since temporaries are generally constrained from forming

workplace affiliations the impact of family social support will be greater for

temporaries to alleviate the negative effects of high job insecurity on work outcomes

than it will be for permanents. Thus, when both family social support and job

insecurity are high, temporaries will report higher psychological well-being, job

satisfaction, affective commitment, contextual performance and intention to change

job status; and lower continuance commitment and turnover intentions than

permanents (High job insecurity X High family social support X job status).

In conclusion, in this Chapter the temporary employment literature was reviewed

since one of the variables proposed in the research model for study one is temporary

job status. Many aspects of temporary work are unpredictable and uncertain.

Whether job insecurity is more, less, or of equal importance to temporaries as it is to

permanents is both theoretically and empirically unclear. Little research has

examined job insecurity perceptions among temporary employees. Whether

temporaries freely choose temporary work was shown to be an important indicator of

how temporaries react to their work situations. Study one investigates the role that

temporary job status and choice in job status play in alleviating or exacerbating the

adverse effects of job insecurity outlined in Chapter 2. The hypotheses developed in

this Chapter are tested in study one and the methodology used is described in the

next Chapter.

99

Chapter 4: Methodology – Study 1

The purpose of study one is to investigate the hypotheses and research questions

proposed in Chapters 1 and 2. Self-report questionnaires were administered in the

current study and this Chapter details the sampling procedures, sample, methods,

measures used and analysis methods.

Sampling strategy

To minimize any potential confounding effects of contextual differences and to

enable comparisons of work attitudes and behaviours across work status groups, data

were collected within a single industry. Furthermore, variations in job characteristics

were also contained by sampling from a narrow band of job roles. Details of the

industry and positions sampled are detailed below.

Recent institutional and organisational changes means that job security is particularly

salient to workers in the industry selected. Specifically, the Australian tertiary

education sector has of late, undergone large-scale restructuring and Government

funding cuts (Gillespie, Walsh, Winefield, Dua & Stough, 2001). In this study focus

groups at 15 Australian universities were undertaken to understand staff perceptions

of occupational stress. Eighty-eight percent of the general staff (n = 104) identified

job insecurity as a source of stress, describing feeling anxiety about the management

of redundancy processes. For those working on a contractual basis, not knowing if

their contract would be renewed was particularly stressful (Gillespie et al., 2001).

Not only is job security important to tertiary education workers but also it is an

industry that hires both permanent and temporary workers. Evidence suggests that

there are stress level differences between these two groups of workers. Namely,

Dua’s survey (1994) of work-related stress, including job security, and the physical

and emotional health of staff (n = 992) across four campuses of a rural Australian

university found significant differences between temporary staff and their permanent

counterparts in stress caused by their respective of work conditions. Items pertaining

100

to these work conditions included access to sufficient equipment, workplace

surroundings (space, noise, and light) and job security. Overall 14 percent of the

respondents reported that they did not have a secure job. The results also suggest

that employees in lower ranked jobs were more stressed than staff in higher-paying

positions (Dua, 1994). Later, data from this study (Dua, 1994) was compared to that

collected from staff (n = 1925) at an urban Australian university (Sharpley,

Reynolds, Acosta & Dua, 1996). Both the levels and sources of job stressors from

the rural and urban samples were the same. Although measured, work conditions

(including job security) as such were not specifically mentioned in the study’s results

(Sharpley et al., 1996).

To limit variations in job complexity in the current research, participant job level was

restricted. As general staff were the most anxious (Sharpley et al., 1996) and lower

ranked employees were more stressed than staff in higher-paying positions (Dua,

1994), data were sampled from all general (non-academic) employees, whether

permanent or temporary at two Australian universities. Respondents were employed

at Higher Education Worker (HEW) Levels 3 and 4, receiving annual salaries

ranging from $29,729 to $35, 982 respectively. A representative HEW3 position is

that of security and traffic officer. Duties for such a position include building and

grounds patrols, parking controls and control of building access; reporting of safety

and security breaches, and lost and/or stolen property; and enforcement of University

Acts, Rules and Statutes within policy and legal guidelines. A typical HEW 4

administrative position includes duties such as administration of a School's course

documentation; maintenance of School information on the Faculty web site;

organisation of seminars and information evenings; and to access databases to collate

information for reports. How these participants were surveyed is described next.

Procedure

In order to pretest the relevance of the constructs of interest to both permanent and

temporary subjects a pilot study was conducted. Data from 12 permanent and 7

temporary bank employees were collected. On the basis of feedback received, some

minor adjustments were made to the instructions that preceded questionnaire items,

101

in particular where response formats changed, for instance from circling a number to

circling a worded response.

At both organisations survey packets were distributed by the organisation’s internal

mailing system. Work address labels for all HEW 3s and HEW 4s were provided by

each organisation. Each packet included a cover letter explaining the purpose and

scope of the study (Appendix 1), a sequentially numbered questionnaire, a postcard

(bearing the same sequential number) for participant contact details, and two replied-

paid envelopes. Participants were informed that their responses and contact details,

if provided, were confidential and their participation voluntary. Respondents were

invited to volunteer their contact details so that they might be included in the follow-

up survey. Completed questionnaires and postcards were returned to a university

address in the postage-paid addressed envelope provided.

Sample

A summary of the demographic characteristics of each sample is presented in Table

4-1 showing all those characteristics in percentages.

Organisation 1

Of the 495 questionnaires distributed at University One, 33 surveys were returned

due to changed addresses. 177 usable questionnaires were returned yielding a

response rate of approximately 36 per cent. Eighty seven per cent of respondents

were female, a larger proportion (by some 5%) than the number of females that

constitute the general staff population at the university. Respondent ages ranged

from 19 to 65 years, with an average of 38 years 11 months. The average participant

at University One indicated a job tenure of 4 years 7 months if holding a permanent

position and 2 years 4 months if in a temporary job. Almost one third of the sample

possessed only high school education, with a further third attaining some post

secondary school training. The remainder, some 29 per cent of the sample, held

bachelor degrees or post-graduate qualifications.

102

Sixty-six per cent (n = 117) of the participants reported that they work on an on-

going basis while only 34% (n = 60) of the respondents worked on a temporary basis.

These percentages approximate the percentage of permanent and temporary

employees in the target sample (i.e., 62.5 % and 37.5 %, respectively). With respect

to preferred work status, 68.3% (n = 41) of the temporaries indicated that they do not

prefer to work on a temporary basis. In fact, 54.2% (n = 32) of them responded that

they often, or very often, thought seriously about changing to permanent work. On-

going participants, in contrast, overwhelmingly preferred their work status (77.6%),

and only 2.6% (n = 3) indicated they often, or very often, thought seriously about

changing to temporary work.

Organisation 2

Of the 752 questionnaires distributed at University Two, only 12 surveys were

returned undelivered. Completed questionnaires were received from 211 individuals,

representing a 27.5% response rate. Twenty-eight (or almost 14%) of the

respondents were male and 176 were female (86%). The average age of these

individuals was 38 years and 3 months (range = 18 to 65 years). Average job tenure

for on-going employees was five and a half years, and 3 years and 4 months for those

in temporary positions. One quarter of the respondents attained only high school

education. Thirty per cent had completed tertiary studies, with the remainder

attempting or completing some post secondary studies. Twenty nine per cent (n =

62) of respondents held temporary positions. In terms of preferred work status, only

20.9% (n = 13) of temporaries indicated that this is their work status preference,

whereas 81.8% (n = 121) of on-going respondents prefer permanent work. Thirty-

seven percent (n = 23) of temporaries reported they often, or very often, think

seriously about changing to permanent work. Only 6% (n = 9) of on-going

participants though, indicated they think often, or very often about changing to

temporary work.

103

Table 4-1 Demographic characteristics for samples at both organisations (in percentages)

Variable Organisation One Organisation Two Temporary Permanent Temporary Permanent

Part-time

Full-time

Part-time

Full-time

Part-time

Full-time

Part-time

Full-time

Age (n = 19) (n = 22) (n = 16) (n = 88) (n = 35) (n = 24) (n = 27) (n = 114) Under 30 37 55 13 32 34 29 11 26

30-39 16 13 43 18 32 21 37 28

40-49 31 18 13 22 23 38 44 16

50 & over 16 14 31 28 11 12 8 30 Gender (n = 19) (n = 22) (n = 16) (n = 92) (n = 35) (n = 24) (n = 27) (n = 114)

Male 21 9 0 14 23 4 0 16

Female 79 91 100 86 77 96 100 84 Education (n = 19) (n = 22) (n = 16) (n = 91) (n = 34) (n = 23) (n = 27) (n = 113)

High school only

16 32 50 30 15 22 19 30

Some tertiary

32 31 37 43 37 48 56 44

Completed tertiary

31 32 13 19 45 30 18 19

Post-graduate

21 5 0 8 3 0 7 7

Tenure (n = 19) (n = 22) (n = 16) (n = 88) (n = 35) (n = 23) (n = 26) (n = 113)

Under 1 yr 37 36 13 21 40 39 0 7

1-5 53 55 37 41 43 49 50 48

5-10 5 4 13 18 14 8 35 19

Over 10 5 5 37 20 3 4 15 26 (n = 19) (n = 21) (n = 16) (n = 89) (n = 35) (n = 24) (n = 27) (n = 114)

Single 21 38 13 28 40 42 15 23

Unemployed partner

5 5 0 15 9 8 7 10

Partner works part-time

5 24 6 10 17 8 4 6

Partner works full-time

69 33 81 47 34 42 74 61

NOTE: ns differ because of missing data.

104

Instrument

A questionnaire to assess the variables outlined in the proposed research model

(Figure 2-1) was administered. The survey consisted of 128 items presented in an 8-

page booklet. Instructions to assist participants in completion of the instrument were

distributed throughout the survey, in particular where response categories changed.

Items were organised according to the number and type of response categories. For

instance, some responses required circling a number, whereas others necessitated

marking a cross (X) on a line. As well, work attitude and personality characteristics

scale items were not necessarily presented together. Questions concerning

respondents’ demographic details were included towards the end of the

questionnaire. A copy of the questionnaire is provided in Appendix 2.

Measures The questionnaire measured background, demographic and dispositional

characteristics of the respondents as well as each of the variables of interest

described below. Sample items from the scales used are provided. Items followed

by an “(R)” indicates that such items were reverse scored before analysis. Measures

previously validated in other research were used wherever possible.

Job status: Job status was operationalized on two dimensions. First, respondents

indicated whether they worked full-time or part-time hours. Second, participants

recorded whether their employment was on an on-going or temporary basis (hired by

the organisation) or on a temporary basis hired through an agency.

Personal and situational demographics: A variety of single-item measures were used

to assess participants’ age, gender, organisational tenure, highest level of education

attained, and the working status of spouse/partner. For example, respondents were

asked to choose from eight levels of educational achievement, from Year 10 through

to completion of post-graduate studies. Working status of spouse (or partner) was

labelled as partner: not employed, works part-time, works full-time or respondents

could indicate they are single.

105

Perceived job insecurity: Job insecurity perceptions concerned employees’ beliefs of

the likelihood that they will lose their current job. Such an approach is consistent

with previous research (e.g., De Witte, 1999; Dekker & Schaufeli, 1995; Heaney et

al., 1991; Lim, 1996). A 5-item scale was used to assess this variable. Respondents

indicated the probability (on a scale of 0-100%) of their retaining a job with their

current employer for as long as they desire one (reverse-coded). On a 7-point scale,

anchored from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree), participants were also

asked to indicate their responses to the following:

“I believe that my job in this organisation is secure”; “In my opinion I will have a job

in this organisation for as long as I want one” (items adapted from Borg & Elizur,

1992, p. 21); “I am confident that this organisation will continue to need my skills

and job knowledge”; “My job performance history will protect me from losing my

job in this organisation”. All items were reverse coded. The five items of the scale

were standardized to equalize the differing means and variances caused by the

different widths of response formats. A constant equivalent to the minimum z score

of each organisation’s sample (i.e., 1.36 for Organisation 1 and 1.23 for Organisation

2) was added to each composite score to calculate the scale total. Adding the

constant means that each scale’s total score became positive. A high score on the

scale therefore indicates higher perceived job insecurity. A Cronbach alpha of 0.86

was obtained for this scale.

Dependent variables

Psychological well-being: Perceptions of psychological well-being were assessed

with the 12-item version of the general health questionnaire (GHQ-12, Goldberg,

1972). The scale covers recent levels of self-confidence and the ability to enjoy

oneself. The scale has proven useful as an indicator of mental health in occupational

studies (Banks, Clegg, Jackson, Kemp, Stafford & Wall, 1980) and is also used in

studies of job insecurity (Hellgren et al., 1999; Roskies et al., 1993). The items

pertain to how respondents’ health has been, in general, over the preceding few

weeks (e.g., have you “Been able to enjoy your normal day-to-day activities?”).

Responses range from ‘more so than usual’ to ‘much less than usual’ on a 4-point

continuum. Scores were totalled to produce global ratings with a range of 12-48.

106

Higher scores indicate poor well-being. Items were reverse scored therefore, so that

high scores reflect better mental health. An internal consistency reliability of 0.89

was obtained for this scale.

Job satisfaction: Job satisfaction is a positive affective reaction to the job (Price,

1997). Quinn and Staines’ (1979) 5-item measure was used to assess facet-free job

satisfaction. Response scales for individual items vary. For example, for the

question “If you were free right now to go into any type of job you wanted, what

would your choice be?”; respondents choose from: “Take the same type of job as

now have”; “Take a different type of job; or “Not want to work”. Respondents

selecting this last response were assigned a missing data code before calculation of

the scale scores. Another item asks: “All in all, how satisfied would you say you are

with your job” To score this particular item a 4-point scale, ranging from 1 (not very

satisfied) to 4 (very satisfied) was used. As the response formats varied in length,

responses to the scale items were standardized to equalize the differing means and

variances. The minimum z score of each organisation’s sample (2.59 for

Organisation 1 and 2.28 for Organisation 2) was added to each composite score to

ensure that the scale totals would be positive. A high score on the scale indicates

greater job satisfaction. A Cronbach alpha of 0.78 was obtained for the scale.

Organisational commitment: Three components of organisational commitment were

assessed as conceptualised by Allen and Meyer (1990). Affective commitment refers

to an individual’s identification with, involvement in, and emotional attachment to

the organisation. Continuance commitment concerns commitment based on the

individuals’ recognition of the costs associated with leaving the organisation.

Commitment based on a sense of obligation to the organisation is the third

component and termed normative commitment.

Scales developed by Allen and Meyer (1990) to measure these constructs are

published in scores of studies providing considerable evidence regarding the

construct validity and reliability of the three measures (Allen & Meyer, 1996).

Based upon a comparison of factor pattern coefficients from five studies representing

eight samples and over 4,000 subjects, Culpepper (2000) recently identified five

repeatedly deficient scale items. Based upon Culpepper’s recommendations, only 19

107

items from the original 24-item scale were utilized in the current study. Example

items are: “I really feel as if this organisation’s problems are my own”; “It would be

very hard for me to leave my organisation right now, even if I wanted to”; and “I

think that people these days move from company to company too often.”

Respondents indicated the extent of their commitment on a 7-point scale, ranging

from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Higher scores on the scales reflect

higher commitment levels. Cronbach alphas obtained were 0.81 for affective

commitment and 0.79 for continuance commitment.

Contextual performance: Contextual performance concerns informal helping and

cooperation, tolerance, active acceptance and enactment of company rules even when

it is personally inconvenient, and gestures that promote and defend an organisation’s

good will (Motowidlo & Van Scotter, 1994; Organ & Paine, 1999). Items chosen to

measure this construct were based on the literature (cf., Borman & Motowidlo, 1993;

MacKenzie, Podsakoff & Fetter, 1991; Organ, 1988). The dimensions of contextual

performance measured were: helping behaviour, organisational loyalty, and

conscientiousness. How each dimension was measured is now explained.

Helping behaviour involves voluntarily cooperative behaviour that: is directly and

obviously affiliative; builds and preserves relationships; and emphasizes

interpersonal harmony (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine & Bachrach, 2000; Van Dyne

& LePine, 1998). Helping behaviour was assessed with six items from the 7-item

scale developed by Van Dyne and LePine (1998) from items adapted from Organ and

Konovsky (1989) and Smith et al. (1983). Cronbach’s alphas in Van Dyne and

LePine’s (1998) studies were .95 at time 1 and .88 at time 2. The same scale was

used in Van Dyne and Ang’s (1998) comparison study of contingent and permanent

employees (α = .95).

Next is organisational loyalty, which concerns spreading goodwill and protecting the

organisation (George & Brief, 1992); endorsing and defending organisational

objectives; and representing the organisation agreeably to outsiders (Borman &

Motowidlo, 1993). Organisational loyalty also concerns identification with and

allegiance to the organisation (Van Dyne, Graham & Dienesch, 1994). This

108

dimension of contextual performance was assessed with two items from the 4-item

‘identification with company’ subscale developed by Farh, Earley and Lin (1997).

The subscale is said to gauge employees’ willingness to spread positive

organisational news to outsiders and defend the company’s reputation (Farh et al.,

1997). In addition, two reverse coded items from a 7-item ‘loyalty’ subscale,

developed by Van Dyne et al. (1994) to represent organisational allegiance, were

included.

Conscientiousness was the third dimension of contextual performance measured.

Labelled as ‘generalised compliance’ (Smith et al., 1983), following organisational

rules and procedures (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993), and job dedication (Van Scotter

& Motowidlo, 1996) this variable captured the extent to which an individual adheres

to organisational rules and procedures, even in the absence of supervision or post hoc

detection (Podsakoff et al., 2000). Two items from Van Dyne et al.’s (1994) 10-item

‘obedience’ subscale were used. The subscale represents employees’ respect for

organisational rules and policies. Additionally, two items from a 5-item

‘conscientiousness’ subscale, developed by Farh et al. (1997) to assess extra-role

compliance to organisational regulations, were included. In all, the contextual

performance measure consisted of 14 items. Example items include:

“I frequently assist others in my work group for the benefit of our group” (helping);

“I eagerly tell outsiders good news about this organisation and clarify their

misunderstandings”; (loyalty) and “I comply with this organisation’s rules and

procedures even when I’m unsupervised and no one can find out”

(conscientiousness). Anchors on the 7-point scale ranged from 1 (strongly disagree)

to 7 (strongly agree). The mean score of the fourteen items was used as the measure

of contextual performance. A coefficient alpha of 0.81 was obtained for the

combined measure.

Turnover intentions: Six items were used to assess respondents’ intentions to resign

during the next three months. The questions were adapted from Hom, Griffeth, and

Sellaro’s (1984) test of Mobley’s (1977) Model of Employee Turnover. Participants

responded on a 5-point scale, ranging from 1 (rarely or never) to 5 (very often).

Example items are: “Over the past month, how often have you seriously thought

about seeking another job?” and “Do you seriously intend to apply for a job in a

109

different occupation during the next three months?” A Cronbach alpha of 0.93 was

obtained for this measure.

Intention to change job status: A single item was used to measure the extent to

which respondents were likely to change their job status. The item was: “How often

have you seriously thought about changing from a permanent to casual work (or from

causal to permanent work) ?” Anchors for the 5-point scale were from 1 (rarely or

never) to 5 (very often).

Moderator variables

Social support: Social support refers to helping relationships provided by family

members, friends, and co-workers regarding work-related matters (Cohen & Wills,

1985; Ganster et al., 1986). Two sources of social support were assessed. One

source was from within the organisation (from co-workers and supervisors) and the

other external to the organisation (family and friends). Both variables (i.e., internal

and external) were measured using Caplan et al.’s (1980) scale. That scale has been

widely used in studies on job stress (Ganster et al., 1986). Each of the four subscales

consists of three items. Example items are: “How much does each of these people go

out of their way to do things to make your work life easier for you?” and “How much

is each of the following people willing to listen to your personal problems?”

Respondents indicate the extent of the support received on a 5-point scale, ranging

from 0 (don’t have any such person) to 4 (very much). Internal support was derived

by averaging participants’ scores on the co-worker and supervisor support subscales.

External support was taken as the average of respondents’ scores on the family and

friend support subscales. Cronbach’s coefficient alphas of 0.84 and 0.86 respectively

were obtained for the scales.

Choice in job status: Choice in job status concerns respondents’ perceptions as to the

extent of control they have as to whether they work in permanent or temporary work

arrangements. Choice in job status was measured by 3 items. Seven-point scales,

anchored with 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) were used. The items were:

“When I accepted my current job, I had a great deal of choice as to whether I took a

casual or permanent job” (R) (labelled multiple job options); “My personal

110

circumstances (e.g., family obligations, financial responsibilities, transport

difficulties) limit my job choices as to whether I take permanent work or casual

work” (personal freedom). The higher the score obtained on the item the less choice

in job status perceived. The third item was: “I prefer to do permanent work rather

than temporary or casual work” (preference for permanent work).

Employability: Based on previous empirical work (viz., Kuhnert & Vance, 1992;

Vance & Kuhnert, 1988; Roskies et al., 1993), employability reflects individuals'

beliefs as to the ease with which they can find comparable employment should their

current job be terminated. Respondents indicated the probability (on a scale of 0-

100%) of their finding a comparable job within 1 month of active job-seeking. Two

items from Rusbult and Farrell’s (1983) ‘value of work alternatives’ scale (“I have

many jobs to choose from besides my current job”; “If I had to, I could easily find a

suitable job elsewhere”) together with three items developed for this study assessed

employability perceptions. Those three items were:

“I have skills that would enable me to find employment outside the tertiary education

industry”; “I am confident that my job search skills (e.g., resume writing, job

interview techniques) are sufficient to help me in finding another job in the event of

job loss”; and “Despite my work experience there are few job opportunities for me in

the job market” (R). A 7-point scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7

(strongly agree) was used. To equalize the differing means and variances caused by

the different response formats, the six items of the scale were standardized. A

constant corresponding to the minimum z score of each organisation’s sample (i.e.,

2.27 for Organisation 1 and 2.13 for Organisation 2) was added to each composite

score to calculate the employability scale total. Adding the constant ensures that

each scale’s total score would be positive. The higher the score obtained on the scale

the stronger the participant’s belief that alternate employment opportunities are

available to them. An internal reliability coefficient of 0.76 was obtained for this

scale.

Job dependency: Job dependency concerns the economic instrumentality of work.

Individuals vary in terms of the income they define as adequate to ensure survival

(Brief & Aldag, 1989; Doran et al., 1991). Understanding the functionality of a

given level of earned income can be viewed in terms of needs and expectations

111

(Brief & Aldag, 1989). Therefore, job dependency was assessed subjectively to

ascertain the extent to which respondents’ viewed their reliance upon their job

income to meet their financial needs and expectations. The four items used read:

“My income from my job in this organisation is important to me (and my

dependents)”; “I could easily adjust my financial commitments (by reducing

expenditure or increasing other sources of income) should I lose my job in this

organisation” (R); “I consider that if I lost my job in this organisation my standard of

living would change for the worse”; and “To maintain the standard of living I desire

for myself (and my dependents), I must keep my current job”. Participants indicated

the extent to which they agreed with each statement using a 7-point Likert scale from

1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The higher the score of this measure

therefore means the greater the degree of job dependency. A Cronbach alpha of 0.69

was obtained for this measure.

Control variables

A number of control variables were included in the questionnaire to rule out

alternative explanations for variation in job insecurity and outcome variables. The

following variables were measured for use as control variables: age, tenure, locus of

control, and negative affectivity. Details of scales used are described below.

Locus of control: Individuals react differently to stressful events that they perceive

can be personally controlled; and one personality variable that appears to determine

partially the effects of perceived controllability/uncontrollability is locus of control

(LOC) (Gatchel, 1980). Conceptualized by Rotter (1966), LOC reflects individuals’

beliefs about who or what controls key events in their lives. Specifically, it is the

extent of individual differences in the tendency to believe that environmental events

are within one’s own control or controlled by other people or chance events (Keenan

& McBain, 1979). Individuals who perceive their lives controlled by their own

actions, skills and abilities are said to be ‘internals’, whereas ‘externals’ believe their

lives controlled by external forces, such as fate, luck or other people (Rotter, 1966).

Locus of control was measured with a sixteen-item scale (Spector, 1988) developed

specifically for use in work settings. Across six samples the coefficient alpha of the

112

scale averaged .82 (Spector, 1988). Elsewhere, an internal consistency reliability

score of .80 (Blau, 1993) is reported. Macan, Trusty and Trimble (1996) investigated

the factor stability of the scale and advise that users of the measure compute separate

subscales for the separate dimensions of internality and externality. Equal numbers

of internally and externally worded items comprise the scale. Internally worded

items were reverse scored such that low scores represent internality and externality,

high scores. An example item is: “If you know what you want out of a job, you can

find a job that gives it to you.”(R). Respondents made ratings on a 7-point scale,

anchored from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Cronbach’s coefficient

alphas of 0.86 (external) and 0.64 (internal) were obtained for these scales.

Negative affectivity: Negative affect is a general dimension of distress and

unpleasureable engagement (Watson et al., 1988) such that individuals high in this

tendency tend to evaluate themselves, others and the world in general in a more

negative way (Hellgren et al., 1999). Such individuals tend therefore to experience

and report high levels of subjective stress. Accordingly, negative affectivity is likely

to inflate the relationship between stressors and strain and is therefore regarded as a

confounding variable that needs to be controlled for (Brief et al., 1988; Mak &

Mueller, 2001; Roskies et al., 1993).

As it is difficult to separate whether the source of an individual’s self-reported

distress is dispositional or environmental, measures that minimize strain content, that

is, those without indexes of physiological or psychological distress are recommended

when examining stressor-strain relationships (Fortunato, Jex & Heinish, 1999).

Thus, this construct was measured using the 13-item version (Fortunato et al., 1999)

of Fortunato and Stone-Romero’s (1999) Strain-Free Negative Affectivity (SFNA)

scale. An example item is: “I tend to become very angry when someone gets

recognition that really belongs to me.” Participants responded to each item on a 6-

point continuum that ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree).

Fortunato et al. (1999) measured the internal consistency reliability for this scale at

0.83. A Cronbach alpha of 0.81 was obtained for this measure.

113

Methods of analysis

Prior to undertaking the analyses, the two data sets were compared to check for

respondent differences since the sample was drawn from employees at two

universities. Statistical comparisons were made to establish whether the samples

differed on any measured variable. Independent samples t-tests were performed on

all the study’s continuous variables across organisation. The results are presented in

Table 4-2. Only two of twenty-two measures were determined as significantly

different. Namely, both affective and continuance commitment were significantly

higher at university 2 (Ms 4.61 vs. 4.28, p < .01; Ms 4.61 vs. 4.27, p < .05).

Comparisons of the two data sets were also undertaken on the basis of the study’s

categorical variables. Chi-square tests for independence show there are no

significant differences between the two data sets on the basis of job status, gender,

education level, or employment status of spouse/partner. Table 4-3 presents χ2

values. Based on these findings, analyses were performed on the pooled sample

from both tertiary institutions.

Hypotheses 3 to 7 predict that situational factors moderate the relationships between

perceived job insecurity and the outcome variables. To test these hypotheses

hierarchical moderated regression techniques (Cohen & Cohen, 1983) were used.

Before proceeding with these analyses, residual scatterplots were inspected to

determine whether there were any serious violations of model assumptions, or model

misspecifications. To distinguish cases with extreme values for the independent

variables, Mahalanobis distance values were calculated. Twenty-one cases were

identified that included standardized residuals lying outside ± 2 standard deviations

of mean values. These cases therefore were excluded from the data set.

114

Table 4-2 Descriptive statistics and t-tests comparing continuous variables between organisations

Uni.

ident. N Mean Std.

Deviationt df Sig.

1. Age One 172 38.98 11.48 .547 375 .585 Two 205 39.62 11.23 2. Tenure One 173 4.63 5.69 1.601 380 .110 Two 209 5.51 5.09 3. Tenure as a One 42 2.36 2.78 1.018 85 .312 temporary Two 45 3.09 3.82 4. Job One 175 1.41 0.81 .057 385 .954 insecurity Two 212 1.41 0.79 5. Multiple job One 176 2.68 2.07 .778 387 .437 options Two 213 2.52 1.97 6. Personal One 176 4.23 2.39 .586 388 .558 freedom Two 214 4.37 2.37 7. Prefer perm. One 176 5.61 1.81 .513 385 .609 work Two 211 5.70 1.77 8. Employability One 176 2.25 0.68 .118 386 .906 Two 212 2.26 0.68 9. Organl. One 174 3.13 0.63 .622 384 .534 social support Two 212 3.09 0.64 10. Family One 176 3.47 0.74 .500 386 .617 social support Two 212 3.44 0.70 11. Sub. job One 175 5.09 1.30 .474 386 .635 dependency Two 213 5.15 1.22 12. Psychol. One 177 3.07 0.50 .416 389 .678 well-being Two 214 3.09 0.43 13. Job One 173 2.71 0.77 .695 383 .488 satisfaction Two 212 2.76 0.70 14. Affective One 175 4.28 1.12 2.728 386 .007 commitment Two 213 4.61 1.24 15. Normative One 177 3.70 1.12 1.699 388 .090 commitment Two 213 3.89 1.03 16.Continuance One 174 4.27 1.32 2.598 386 .010 commitment Two 214 4.61 1.28 17. Contextual One 176 5.56 0.69 1.919 388 .056 performance Two 214 5.69 0.67 18. Turnover One 174 2.05 1.10 .922 383 .357 intentions Two 211 1.94 1.11 19. Intention to One 174 2.13 1.38 1.280 384 .201 chge job status Two 212 1.96 1.29 20. External One 177 3.61 1.07 .165 388 .869 locus of control Two 213 3.59 1.07 21. Internal One 177 5.09 0.76 .406 389 .685 locus of control Two 214 5.12 0.79 22. Negative One 173 3.67 0.79 .379 381 .705 affectivity Two 210 3.70 0.74

115

Table 4-3 Descriptive statistics and Pearson Chi-square tests comparing categorical variables between organisations

Organ. Identification Total

χ2 df Sig. University

One University

Two

Job status Permanent Count 117 149 266 % of

total 29.9% 38.1% 68.0%

Temporary Count 60 65 125 % of

total 15.3% 16.6% 32.0% .55 1 .457

Gender Male Count 22 31 53 % of

total 5.6% 7.9% 13.6%

Female Count 155 183 338 % of

total 39.6% 46.8% 86.4% .35 1 .554

Education Year 10 Count 36 26 62 level % of

total 9.3% 6.7% 16.0%

Year 12 Count 20 28 48 % of

total 5.2% 7.2% 12.4%

Partially Count 13 19 32 completed trade/dip % of

total 3.4% 4.9% 8.3%

Completed trade/ Count 28 44 72 diploma % of

total 7.2% 11.4% 18.6%

Partially Count 27 31 58 completed Uni degree % of

total 7.0% 8.0% 15.0%

Completed Uni Count 30 30 60 Uni degree % of

total 7.8% 7.8% 15.5%

Partially Count 9 20 29 completed Post-grad. % of

total 2.3% 5.2% 7.5%

Completed Count 13 13 26 Post-grad % of

total 3.4% 3.4% 6.7% 8.98 7 .254

Working Single Count 51 59 110 status of % of total 13.2% 15.3% 28.6% spouse/ UnemployedCount 19 19 38 partner partner % of total 4.9% 4.9% 9.9% Partner wks Count 17 17 34 part-time % of total 4.4% 4.4% 8.8% Partner wks Count 86 117 203 full-time % of total 22.3% 30.4% 52.7% 1.38 3 .710

116

The detection of moderator effects requires the use of interaction terms (the product

of the independent and moderator variables) and such product terms are generally

collinear with their component terms. To reduce the risk of such multicollinearity,

all continuous predictor variables were mean-centred before calculating the

interaction terms and regression statistics complying with the procedures outlined by

Aiken and West (1991). Where distributions are normal, such transformations tend

to generate low correlations between the interaction terms and their constituent parts

(Jaccard, Turrisi & Wan, 1990). Even so, the statistical power or the probability of

detecting moderator effects in a sample decreases considerably as the number of

interaction terms increases (Cohen & Cohen, 1983).

In the first hierarchical step the dependent variable is regressed on to the control

variables, (age, tenure, external locus of control, internal locus of control, and

negative affect) whose potential confounding effects were noted earlier. The centred

independent variable (job insecurity), and moderator variables (e.g., job status, and

preference for permanent work) depending on the hypothesis are entered at the

second step. The job status variable was dummy coded, such that temporaries were

assigned a value of zero, and permanents a value of 1. Next the three two-way

product terms are entered into the equation. Then the three-way product term is

entered at the last step.

Moderation is supported when the addition of an interaction term (the product)

provides a significant increment in variance (Δ R2) associated with the dependent

variable beyond the variance accounted for by the main effects (Champoux & Peters,

1987; Chaplin, 1991; Jaccard et al., 1990; James & Brett, 1984). This degree of

association measure typically, in non-experimental studies, falls within a range of

changes in R2 equalling .01 through to .03 (Champoux & Peters, 1987; Chaplin,

1991). Size of the increment in R2 is not an adequate indication of the strength of

interaction effects, however. Magnitudes of moderator effects are shown by the rate

of change in slope of the regression line(s), with the simple slope coefficients

indicating the strength of the relationship between the moderator variable and the

form of the relationship between the independent and dependent variable.

(Champoux & Peters, 1987; Jaccard et al., 1990). Thus, a significant simple slope

(tested by t-test) indicates that the regression of the dependent variable on the

117

independent variable, in this case job insecurity, varies across the range of values of

the moderator variables, in this case job status and for example, employability

(Aiken & West, 1991).

To aid in the interpretation of the interactions, following the procedures

recommended by Aiken and West (1991), the regression results were used to plot a

series of points ranging at one standard deviation below the mean to one standard

deviation above the mean on the independent variables in order to ascertain the

nature of the interaction. To determine the direction of the 3-way interactions, each

job status group plot was examined for respondents who scored high on both

moderators, low on both moderators, and high on one and low on the other

moderator, four slopes in all. The format chosen to graph the interactions was that

job insecurity was plotted on the X axis, being the primary independent variable.

The plot lines represent the two job statuses, due to the central importance of this

variable to study one. As the other moderators (e.g., choice in job status,

employability) were hypothesized to modify the effects of job insecurity graphs were

created at low and high levels of these moderators.

The simple slopes generated were then tested to ascertain which, if any, were

significantly different from zero. If the slope of the dependent variable on the

independent variable was found to be statistically significant, this was interpreted to

indicate that the effects of job insecurity varied as a function of the moderators being

tested. The sign of the regression coefficients (either standardized or

unstandardized) for the 3-way product term indicated which job status group gave a

higher score on the dependent variable. Based upon the dummy coding method used

(temporaries = 0; permanents = 1), if the regression coefficient sign was positive,

permanents had a higher expected score on the criterion. Conversely, a negative sign

showed that temporaries scored higher than permanents on the dependent variable in

question. For each regression equation if the three-way interaction was not

significant, then, for theoretical reasons, the non-significant product term was

retained in the regression model in order to evaluate the significance of any of the

two-way interactions. Results for each moderator analysis are reported in the next

Chapter.

118

To conclude, this Chapter has outlined the design of study one, providing details of

the sample, procedures, and scales used to assess the variables in the proposed

research model. The next Chapter reports the results of the data analyses used to

investigate the hypotheses for study one.

119

Chapter 5: Results – Study 1

The results of study one are described in this Chapter. The Chapter begins with

descriptive statistics of the pooled data. Results of the tests of the hypotheses

proposed in Chapter 2 complete the remainder of the Chapter.

Descriptive statistics of combined data

Table 5-1 shows the means, standard deviations, zero-order intercorrelations, and

internal consistency reliabilities (Cronbach, 1951) for the various measures used in

the study. As noted in the preceding Chapter scales were computed for many of the

study’s variables. A number of these scales, such as affective commitment and

negative affectivity, have been used extensively in the literature. Other scales, such

as employability, were created for this study. Coefficient alphas of the study’s scales

are acceptable with all but two (subjective job dependency α = 0.69, and internal

locus of control α = 0.64) being marginally below the desired level of 0.70

(Nunnally, 1978).

120

Table 5-1 Descriptive statistics, intercorrelations, and reliability estimates for study variables Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

n = 377 382 387 389 390 387 388 386 388 388 391 385 388 388 390 385 386 390 391 383 Mean 39.3 5.11 1.41 2.59 4.31 5.66 2.25 3.11 3.45 5.12 3.09 2.74 4.46 4.46 5.64 1.99 2.04 3.60 5.11 3.69

SD 11.3 5.38 0.80 2.01 2.38 1.78 0.68 0.64 0.72 1.25 0.46 0.73 1.20 1.30 0.68 1.10 1.33 1.07 0.77 0.77 1. Age (-) .44** .18* .02 .16 -.06 -.38** -.09 -.22* .08 .01 .07 .05 .08 .22* -.23* .03 -.06 -.24** -.11 2. Tenure .48** (-) .03 .17 .13 -.19* -.36** -.06 -.11 -.03 .05 .26** -.05 .04 .09 -.14 -.14 .12 -.13 -.07 3. Job insecurity

.14* -.06 (.86) -.33** -.05 .04 -.11 -.21* .03 .02 -.27** -.39** -.34** -.16 -.22* .37** .28** .12 -.49** .16

4. Job optns -.11 .04 -.30** (-) .04 -.19* .09 -.05 -.47 -.29** .12 .08 -.09 -.29** -.03 .03 -.19* -.11 .10 -.08 5. Per freedom .11 .04 .05 -.09 (-) -.16 .01 -.10 -.14 -.01 -.13 .04 -.03 -.01 .01 .04 -.10 .11 .01 .11 6. Prefer perm. work

.02 -.04 -.03 -.06 -.06 (-) -.09 .19* .15 .26** -.12 .09 .25** .20* .16 .01 .35** .01 .03 .02

7.Employability -.26** -.18** -.44** .21** -.18** .07 (.76) .02 -.01 -.39** .04 -.30** -.16 -.56** -.13 .26** -.12 -.15 .24** -.24**

8. Organl. soc support

-.02 .11 -.34** .11 -.14* .04 .24** (.84) .11 .04 .28** .37** .44** -.01 .32** -.24** .07 -.18* .27** -.15

9. Fam. soc support

-.04 .02 -.18** -.01 -.05 -.05 .12 .21** (.86) -.12 .18* .01 .14 .01 .03 .07 .03 -.21* .12 -.01

10. Job dependency

.04 .09 .20** -.19** .25** .15* -.45** -.11 -.01 (.69) -.23* .16 .16 .67** .14 -.17 .19* .24** -.17 .10

11. Well-being .14* .12 -.09 .19** -.06 .05 .13* .31** .14* -.12* (.89) .46** .26** -.14 .13 -.38** -.14 -.17 .38** -.42**

12. Job satisfaction

.11 .12 -.30** .11 -.11 .01 .17** .37** .19** .07 .37** (.78) .54** .23* .35** -.61** -.21* -.07 .29** -.19*

13. Affective. commitment

.14* .11 -.30** .15* -.04 .11 .19** .38** .09 -.03 .23** .58** (.81) .24** .65** -.48** -.02 -.10 .36** -.13

14. Continuan. commitment

.14* .18** .15* -.14* .20** .14* -.46** -.09 -.04 .63** -.15* -.06 .02 (.79) .12 -.29** .12 .25** -.09 .15

15. Contextual performance

.20** .03 -.27** .17** .03 .16** .18** .24** .17** .01 .22** .35** .63** -.03 (.81) -.35** .05 -.12 .26** -.22*

16. Turnover -.32** -.20** .15* -.06 .09 -.10 .01 -.31** -.09 -.07 -.43** -.61** -.53** -.09 -.41** (.93) .30** .21* -.26** .17 17. Intent to change status

-.04 -.06 .03 .04 -.02 -.17** -.05 -.08 .12 -.02 -.21** -.13* -.08 .01 .02 .24** (-) .19* -.13 -.01

18. Extnl LOC .02 -.01 .10 -.11 .14* .02 -.30** -.20** -.16** .21** -.34** -.27** -.20** .29** -.18** .23** .09 (.86) -.20* .13 19. Intrnl LOC -.07 -.02 -.40** .25** -.18** .12 .24** .40** .13* -.15* .30** .42** .44** -.11 .42** -.30** -.05 -.16** (.64) -.21* 20. Negative affect

-.12 -.03 .08 -.08 .07 -.03 -.10 -.14* -.02 .18** -.44** -.14* -.02 .26** -.13* .21** .15* .14* -.16** (.81)

* p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001 Correlations below the diagonal are for permanent employees. Correlations for temporaries are above the diagonal.

121

Tests of hypotheses

In this section the results of the hypotheses are presented and are grouped according

to hypothesis order.

Hypothesis 1: Reactions to job insecurity Hypothesis 1 concerns job insecurity perceptions and how they relate to the study’s

dependent variables irrespective of job status. As predicted, the regression results

suggest that those with high job insecurity have less favourable work outcomes. As

Table 5-2 shows, after controlling for gender, age, marital status, educational level,

tenure, external locus of control, internal locus of control, negative affect and job

status, job insecurity was significant in predicting decrements to job satisfaction (β =

-.21, p < .001), affective commitment (β = -.20, p < .001), contextual performance (β

= -.13, p < .05), and higher turnover intentions (β = .16, p < .01). Contrary to

expectations, job insecurity did not significantly predict decreased psychological

well-being or increased continuance commitment.

Hypothesis 2: Comparing job insecurity – temporaries & permanents Hypothesis 2 predicted that temporary employees are more likely to report higher job

insecurity than permanent employees. On average, temporary employees reported

job insecurity at 1.42 (s.d. = .80) whereas the mean for permanents was 1.35 (s.d. =

.75). A t-test showed that this difference between the job status groups was not

statistically significant (t = 0.74, p < .46). Thus, hypothesis 2 was not supported.

122

Table 5-2 Regression results for the effects of job insecurity. Psy. well-being

N = 361 Job satisfaction

N = 359 Affect. commit.

N = 361 Contin. commit.

N = 360 Context. perform.

N = 360 Turnover intent

N = 359 Step 1:

Gender -.08 -.08 -.02 -.04 .05 .04 -.04 -.05 .05 .04 .03 .04

Age .02 .02 .10 .14* .17** .21*** .10 .11 .25*** .27*** -.26*** -.29***

Marital status -.03 -.03 .06 .05 .04 .03 -.02 -.02 .01 .01 -.01 .01

Educational level -.07 -.07 .06 .06 .06 .06 -.04 -.04 .01 .01 .04 .04

Tenure .08 .08 .14* .11* .02 -.01 .07 .07 -.05 -.07 -.05 -.03 External locus of control -.19*** -.19*** -.14** -.14** -.11* -.10* .25*** .25*** -.08 -.08 .15** .15** Internal locus of control .23*** .23*** .36*** .27*** .40*** .32*** -.01 -.02 .35*** .29*** -.25*** -.19***

Negative affectivity -.36*** -.36*** -.07 -.06 .05 .05 .21*** .21*** -.08 -.08 .08 .07

Job statusa -.07 -.07 .02 .02 .13** .13** .18** .18*** .07 .08 -.22*** -.22***

Step 2:

Job insecurity

.01

-.21***

-.20***

-.02

-.13*

.16**

R2 (adjusted) .29*** .29 .19*** .23*** .19*** .22*** .17*** .17 .17** .18* .26** .28**

∆ R2 .29*** .00 .19*** .04*** .19*** .03*** .17*** .00 .17** .01* .26** .02**

Standardized betas are reported. * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p< .001. a Coding for job status: 0 = temporary; 1 = permanent

123

Moderator tests – method

Hypotheses 3 to 7 suggest that situational factors might moderate the relationships

between perceived job insecurity and the work outcome variables. To test these

hypotheses hierarchical moderated regression techniques (Cohen & Cohen, 1983)

were used. Before proceeding with these analyses, residual scatterplots were

inspected to determine whether there were any serious violations of model

assumptions, or model misspecifications. To distinguish cases with extreme values

for the independent variables, Mahalanobis distance values were calculated.

Twenty-one cases were identified that included standardized residuals lying outside

± 2 standard deviations of mean values. These cases therefore were excluded from

the data set.

The detection of moderator effects requires the use of interaction terms (the product

of the independent and moderator variables) and such product terms are generally

collinear with their component terms. To reduce the risk of such multicollinearity,

all continuous predictor variables were mean-centred before calculating the

interaction terms and regression statistics complying with the procedures outlined by

Aiken and West (1991). Where distributions are normal, such transformations tend

to generate low correlations between the interaction terms and their constituent parts

(Jaccard, Turrisi & Wan, 1990). Even so, the statistical power or the probability of

detecting moderator effects in a sample decreases considerably as the number of

interaction terms increases (Cohen & Cohen, 1983).

In the first hierarchical step the dependent variable is regressed on to the control

variables, (age, tenure, external locus of control, internal locus of control, and

negative affect) whose potential confounding effects are discussed in the preceding

Chapter. The centred independent variable (job insecurity), and moderator variables

(e.g., job status, and preference for permanent work) depending on the hypothesis are

entered at the second step. The job status variable was dummy coded, such that

temporaries were assigned a value of zero, and permanents a value of 1. Next the

three two-way product terms are entered into the equation. Then the three-way

product term is entered at the last step.

124

Moderation is supported when the addition of an interaction term (the product)

provides a significant increment in variance (Δ R2) associated with the dependent

variable beyond the variance accounted for by the main effects (Champoux & Peters,

1987; Chaplin, 1991; Jaccard et al., 1990; James & Brett, 1984). This degree of

association measure typically, in non-experimental studies, falls within a range of

changes in R2 equalling .01 through to .03 (Champoux & Peters, 1987; Chaplin,

1991). Size of the increment in R2 is not an adequate indication of the strength of

interaction effects, however. Magnitudes of moderator effects are shown by the rate

of change in slope of the regression line(s), with the simple slope coefficients

indicating the strength of the relationship between the moderator variable and the

form of the relationship between the independent and dependent variable.

(Champoux & Peters, 1987; Jaccard et al., 1990). Thus, a significant simple slope

(tested by t-test) indicates that the regression of the dependent variable on the

independent variable, in this case job insecurity, varies across the range of values of

the moderator variables, in this case job status and for example, employability

(Aiken & West, 1991).

To aid in the interpretation of the interactions, following the procedures

recommended by Aiken and West (1991), the regression results were used to plot a

series of points ranging at one standard deviation below the mean to one standard

deviation above the mean on the independent variables in order to ascertain the

nature of the interaction. To determine the direction of the 3-way interactions, each

job status group plot was examined for respondents who scored high on both

moderators, low on both moderators, and high on one and low on the other

moderator, four slopes in all. The format chosen to graph the interactions was that

job insecurity was plotted on the X axis, being the primary independent variable.

The plot lines represent the two job statuses, due to the central importance of this

variable to study one. As the other moderators (e.g., choice in job status,

employability) were hypothesized to modify the effects of job insecurity graphs were

created at low and high levels of these moderators.

The simple slopes generated were then tested to ascertain which, if any, were

significantly different from zero. If the slope of the dependent variable on the

independent variable was found to be statistically significant, this was interpreted to

125

indicate that the effects of job insecurity varied as a function of the moderators being

tested. The sign of the regression coefficients (either standardized or

unstandardized) for the 3-way product term indicated which job status group gave a

higher score on the dependent variable. Based upon the dummy coding method used

(temporaries = 0; permanents = 1), if the regression coefficient sign was positive,

permanents had a higher expected score on the criterion. Conversely, a negative sign

showed that temporaries scored higher than permanents on the dependent variable in

question. For each regression equation if the three-way interaction was not

significant, then, for theoretical reasons, the non-significant product term was

retained in the regression model in order to evaluate the significance of any of the

two-way interactions. In such cases, only the significant two-ways results are

presented. Results for each moderator analysis are reported in the next section.

Moderator tests – results

Hypotheses 3 to 7 predict that job insecurity and job status interact with a number of

moderators in the prediction of work outcomes. Hypotheses 3 to 5 concern aspects

of control: choice in job status, employability, and job dependency. Hypotheses 6

and 7 relate to social support from two sources: organisational, and family and

friends. Results for each of those five moderators are presented in this section.

Hypothesis 3: Choice in job status Hypothesis 3 predicted that the relationships between job insecurity and work

outcomes would be jointly moderated by job status and choice in job status.

Specifically it was predicted that when choice in job status was low and job

insecurity high, temporaries would report higher turnover intentions and lower

psychological well-being, job satisfaction, affective commitment, contextual

performance and continuance commitment than permanent employees. The

hypothesis was partially supported, as is now explained.

Choice in job status assesses the extent to which temporaries feel “trapped” in their

job status. Permanents indicated they had significantly more job options than

temporaries (F (2,360) = 19.00, p < .001). Permanents also reported they had

significantly more personal freedom (such as fewer family or financial

126

commitments) in selecting temporary or permanent work than did temporaries (t

(2,361) = 3.11, p < .01). These findings suggest that temporaries feel more

constrained than permanents in their job mobility between job status groups.

As detailed in Chapter 4, choice in job status was measured in three ways. First, the

personal freedom item (viz., “My personal circumstances [e.g., family obligations,

financial responsibilities, transport difficulties] limit my job choices as to whether I

take permanent work or casual work”) was tested as a moderator in the job insecurity

and work outcomes relationship but no significant relationships were found.

Second, choice in job status was assessed with an item labelled multiple job options

(i.e., “When I accepted my current job, I had a great deal of choice as to whether I

took a casual or permanent job”). For the multiple job options item (MJO) only one

statistically significant relationship of interest was indicated. MJO was found to

moderate the link between job insecurity and contextual performance, though

temporaries and permanents did not differ in their reactions. The regression equation

explained 19.5% (adjusted) of the variance in contextual performance (F (3, 327) =

2.72, p < .05). Of the five control variables tested in the model, the regression

coefficients of two achieved significance: age (β = .27, p < .001) and internal locus

of control (β = .28, p < .001). In the second block of predictors, only job insecurity

reached significance (β = -.21, p < .05). Results of the regression analyses presented

in Table 5-3 show that relations between job insecurity and contextual performance

is altered depending on the level of job options perceived available.

127

Table 5-3 Regression results for contextual performance as a function of job insecurity and multiple job options

Predictors β R2 Δ R2 F change

Step 1 (control variables)

Age .27***

Tenure -.05

External locus of control -.08

Internal locus of control .28***

Negative affect -.06 .18 .18 14.51***

Step 2 (linear effects)

Job statusa (JS) .06

Job insecurity (JI) -.21*

Multiple job options (MJO) -.11 .20 .02 3.16*

Step 3 (two-way interactions)

JI X MJO -.15**

JI X JS -.01

JS X MJO .06 .22 .02 2.72*

Contextual performance is the criteria variable. Standardized betas of the final model are reported. N = 338 a Coding of job status: 0 = temporary; 1 = permanent * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001

Figure 5-1 shows the shape of the significant interaction: among employees with

high job options, those who felt insecure about their job had significantly lower

contextual performance than those who felt secure, though unexpectedly temporaries

and permanents reacted the same way. Simple slope analysis supports such an

interpretation. Irrespective of job status, for those with high job options, increased

job insecurity was significantly related to lower levels of contextual performance (β

= -.36, t = 3.91, p < .001), whereas no significant relationship was apparent for those

with low job options (β = -.05, NS).

128

Fig. 5-1 Relationship between job insecurity and contextual performance as a function of multiple job options

3

4

5

6

LOW Job Insecurity HIGH Job Insecurity

Con

text

ual P

erfo

rman

ce

Low JobOptions

High JobOptions

Apart from the personal freedom and multiple job options items, choice in job status

was also assessed with an item gauging respondent preference for permanent work.

Preference for permanent work (PPW) and job status were tested as joint moderators

of the job insecurity and work outcomes relationships but no significant relationships

were found for psychological well-being, job satisfaction, or affective commitment.

For continuance commitment, contextual performance, and turnover intentions,

however, significant three-way interactions were found.

As Table 5-4 shows, the full model explained 23.2% (adjusted) of the variance in

continuance commitment and the overall relationship was significant (F (1, 327) =

5.52, p < .05). Although the control variables, as a block, were highly significant (F

(5, 334) = 12.64, p < .001) in predicting continuance commitment, only tenure (β =

.14, p < .05), external locus of control (β = .26, p < .001) and negative affect (β = .18,

p < .001) were significant in the full model.

With respect to the main effects of the independent variables, both job status (β =

.12, p < .05) and job insecurity (β = -.32, p < .001) were significant. Of the three

possible two-way interaction terms, only the job status by job insecurity (JS X JI)

129

interaction term was significant (β = .36, p < .001). Finally, the three-way

interaction was statistically significant (Δ R2 = .01, F (1, 327) = 5.52, p < .05).

Support was thus provided for the prediction that the interaction of job status and

preference for permanent work on continuance commitment had different effects

depending upon the level of job insecurity experienced.

Table 5-4 Regression results for continuance commitment as a function of job insecurity, job status, and preference for permanent work

Predictors β R2 Δ R2 F change

Step 1 (control variables) Age 0.08

Tenure 0.14*

External locus of control 0.26***

Internal locus of control -0.08

Negative affect 0.18*** .16 .16 12.64***

Step 2 (linear effects) Job statusa (JS) 0.12*

Job insecurity (JI) -0.32***

Preference for permanent wk (PPW)

0.13 .20 .04 5.46**

Step 3 (two-way interactions) JI X JS 0.36***

JI X PPW 0.09

JS X PPW 0.06 .25 .05 6.99***

Step 4 (three-way interaction) JI X PPW X JS -0.20* .26 .01 5.52*

Continuance commitment is the criteria variable. Standardized betas of the final model are reported. N = 328 a Coding of job status: 0 = temporary; 1 = permanent * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001 Low choice High choice

(1) Temps. (2) Perms. (3) Temps. (4) Perms.

Standardized β -.24 -.02 -.40 .26

t-score = 1.87 .20 3.79 3.03

Significance p = .063 .843 .000 .003

130

Simple slope analyses were conducted to examine differences in slope by job status

type and to determine if these slopes differed significantly from zero. These results

are shown at the base of Table 5-4 and are presented graphically in Figure 5-2.

Simple slope analyses were also undertaken for each level of choice at high and low

levels of job insecurity to determine if the differences between the job status groups

were significantly different, in order to test hypothesis 3.

The results at the base of Table 5-4 (column 1) show that when choice is low (i.e.,

high PPW), temporaries tended to report lower continuance commitment when job

insecurity was high rather than low (β = -.24, p < .06), as illustrated by the negative

slope in Figure 5-2 (a). In contrast, Figure 5-2 (a) also shows that the relationship

between low choice in job status and continuance commitment for permanents was

negligible (β = -.02, NS, column 2 in Table 5-4), indicating that a high desire for

permanent work did not influence job insecurity effects on continuance commitment

levels for permanent workers. In support of hypothesis 3, the continuance

commitment of temporaries was significantly lower than that of permanents when

choice was low and job insecurity was high (β = .26, t = 2.77, p < .01).

Although not hypothesized, the three-way interaction was also significant (Table 5-4,

columns 3 and 4) when choice is high (i.e., low PPW). The patterns of both

interactions are shown in Figure 5-2 (b), where the effect of job insecurity levels and

high choice appear to produce opposite influences on the predicted continuance

commitment values of temporaries and permanents. When choice is high (i.e., low

PPW), temporaries reporting higher job insecurity also reported lower continuance

commitment (β = -.40, p < .001), as illustrated by the downward slope in Figure 5-2

(b). For permanents though, a different reaction was observed. When choice was

high, permanents with higher job insecurity also reported higher continuance

commitment, as compared to those reporting low job insecurity (β = .26, p < .01),

shown as the positive slope in Figure 5-2 (b). Additionally, these differences

between temporaries and permanents in continuance commitment at both high levels

of job insecurity (β = .40, t = 4.52, p < .001) and low levels of job insecurity (β = -

.23, t = 2.35, p < .05) were significantly different.

131

Fig. 5-2 Relationship between job insecurity and continuance commitment as a function of job status and preference for permanent work

(a)

High Preference for Permanent Work(Low Choice)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

LOW Job Insecurity HIGH Job Insecurity

Con

tinua

nce

Com

mitm

ent

TemporariesPermanents

(b)

Low Preference for Permanent Work(High Choice)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

LOW Job Insecurity HIGH Job Insecurity

Con

tinua

nce

Com

mitm

ent

TemporariesPermanents

Thus temporaries and permanents differed in their reactions to their perceived job

insecurity depending upon how much they desired permanent work. Specifically, for

those that strongly prefer permanent work, increases in job insecurity tended to have

a negative effect on continuance commitment but only for temporary employees. For

permanents, the level of job insecurity experienced had minimal effect on their

continuance commitment, illustrated by the almost flat plot line (Fig. 5-2a). For

132

those employees with a low preference for permanent work, alternate reactions to job

insecurity were found. Namely, for permanents, increasing job insecurity related to

perceptions of having more to lose, that is, continuance commitment increased. For

temporaries, in contrast, increasing job insecurity related to a sense of having less to

lose (continuance commitment decreased). Such a reaction by temporaries might be

explained by cognitive dissonance theory (Festinger, 1962), since pressures toward

consistency are greater in situations in which perceived choice is high rather than

when it is low (Doran et al., 1991).

The next significant 3-way interaction detected involved the regression of contextual

performance on job insecurity, job status, preference for permanent work and their

interactions. Predictors were entered into the regression equation in the same order

of entry noted earlier. Findings are presented in Table 5-5. Supporting hypothesis 3,

the three-way effect was statistically significant (Δ R2 = .01, F (1, 327) = 5.31, p <

.05) with the full model accounting for 21.1% (adjusted) of variance in contextual

performance. Of the block of control variables, both age (β = .27, p < .001) and

internal locus of control (β = .26, p < .001) were significant. None of the three linear

effects (i.e., JS, JI, or PPW) were significant in step two, yet the addition of these

predictors to the model was significant (Δ R2 = .04, F (3, 331) = 6.05, p < .01). Of

the three possible two-way interactions, only the job insecurity by preference for

permanent work interaction term reached significance (β = .23, p < .01), though the

addition of these predictors did not add significantly to the model (Δ R2 = .01, F (3,

328) = 0.73, NS).

Hypothesis 3 predicted that when choice is low and job insecurity high, temporaries

would report lower contextual performance than permanents. The results (in Table

5-5 – column1) show that when choice is low (i.e., high PPW), increases in job

insecurity do not significantly affect the contextual performance of temporaries (β =

.08, NS). For permanents with low choice though, increased job insecurity was

significantly related to reduced contextual performance (β = -.17, p < .05), as

illustrated in the downward sloping plot line (Fig. 5-3a). Differences in contextual

133

Table 5-5 Regression results for contextual performance as a function of job

insecurity, job status, and preference for permanent work Predictors β R2 Δ R2 F change

Step 1 (control variables) Age .27***

Tenure -.04

External locus of control -.08

Internal locus of control .26***

Negative affect -.06 .18 .18 14.56***

Step 2 (linear effects) Job statusa (JS) .03

Job insecurity (JI) -.13

Preference for permanent wk (PPW)

.13 .22 .04 6.05**

Step 3 (two-way interactions) JI X JS -.02

JI X PPW .23**

JS X PPW .02 .23 .01 0.73

Step 4 (three-way interaction) JI X PPW X JS -.19* .24 .01 5.31*

Contextual performance is the criteria variable. Standardized betas of the final model are reported. N = 339 a Coding of job status: 0 = temporary; 1 = permanent * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001 Low choice High choice

(1) Temps. (2) Perms. (3) Temps. (4) Perms.

Standardized β -.08 -.17 -.34 -.14

t-score = .63 1.99 3.15 1.64

Significance p = .532 .047 .002 .10

performance between temporaries and permanents were not significant at either high

levels of job insecurity (β = -.08, NS) or at low levels of job insecurity (β = .16, NS).

Although not hypothesized, the three-way interaction was also significant (Table 5-5,

columns 3 and 4) when choice is high (i.e., low PPW). The patterns of both

interactions are shown in Figure 5-3 (b). When choice is high (i.e., low PPW),

temporaries reporting higher job insecurity also reported lower contextual

134

performance (β = -.34, p < .01), illustrated by the downward sloping plot line. In

contrast, the job insecurity-contextual performance relationship for permanents with

high choice though was negligible (β = -.14, NS). Again, these differences in

contextual performance between temporaries and permanents were not significant at

either high levels of job insecurity (β = .11, NS) or at low levels of job insecurity (β

= -.07, NS).

Fig. 5-3 Relationship between job insecurity and contextual performance as a function of job status and preference for permanent work

(a) High Preference for Permanent Work

(Low Choice)

5.3

5.4

5.5

5.6

5.7

5.8

5.9

6

6.1

6.2

LOW Job Insecurity HIGH Job Insecurity

Con

text

ual P

erfo

rman

ce

TemporariesPermanents

(b)

Low Preference for Permanent Work(High Choice)

5

5.1

5.2

5.3

5.4

5.5

5.6

5.7

5.8

5.9

6

LOW Job Insecurity HIGH Job Insecurity

Con

text

ual P

erfo

rman

ce

TemporariesPermanents

135

Hypothesis 3 also predicted that when choice is low and job insecurity high,

temporaries would report higher turnover intentions than permanent employees.

Table 5-6 shows findings to support such a prediction. The control variables

accounted for 22.4% (adjusted) variation in turnover intentions (Δ R2 = .24, F (5,

333) = 20.46, p < .001). Regression coefficients for age (β = -.29, p < .001), external

(β = .14, p < .01) and internal (β = -.15, p < .01) locus of control were significant.

Two of the linear effects, job insecurity (β = .38, p < .001) and job status (β = -.20, p

< .001), were significant in the second block of predictors. The interaction between

job insecurity and job status (β = -.25, p < .01) was the only statistically significant

two-way interaction in the next step. Lastly, the three-way effect was statistically

significant (Δ R2 = .01, F (1, 326) = 5.05, p < .05) with the full model accounting for

32.2% of variance in turnover intentions.

Figure 5-4 provides graphical representations of the job insecurity-choice

interactions across job status groups for turnover intentions. Figure 5-4 (a) shows

that when permanent work is strongly preferred (i.e., low choice), increases in job

insecurity have a positive effect on the turnover intentions of both temporaries and

permanents, although the effect is slightly stronger for temporaries than permanents.

Simple slope analysis provides support for such an interpretation as shown in Table

5-7, column 1 (β = .28, p < .05) and column 2 (β = .18, p < .05), for temporaries and

permanents respectively. In support of hypothesis 3, the turnover intentions of

temporaries were significantly higher than that of permanents when choice was low

and job insecurity was high (β = -.33, t = 3.64, p < .001). Differences between

temporaries and permanents in their turnover intentions were also significant when

both choice and job insecurity were low (β = -.22, t = 2.24, p < .05).

Although not hypothesized, the three-way interaction is also significant when choice

in job status is high, but only for temporary employees (Table 5-7, column 3; β = .48,

t = 4.90, p < .001). Figure 5-4 (b) indicates that for those temporaries that do not

prefer permanent work, increases in job insecurity had a positive effect on turnover

136

Table 5-6 Regression results for turnover intentions as a function of job insecurity,

job status, and preference for permanent work

Predictors β R2 Δ R2 F change

Step 1 (control variables) Age -.29***

Tenure -.04

External locus of control .14**

Internal locus of control -.15**

Negative affect .06 .24 .24 20.46***

Step 2 (linear effects) Job statusa (JS) -.20***

Job insecurity (JI) .38***

Preference for permanent wk (PPW)

.01 .31 .07 11.83***

Step 3 (two-way interactions) JI X JS -.25**

JI X PPW -.11

JS X PPW -.12 .34 .03 4.32**

Step 4 (three-way interaction) JI X PPW X JS .18* .35 .01 5.05*

Turnover intentions is the criteria variable. Standardized betas of the final model are reported. N = 338 a Coding of job status: 0 = temporary; 1 = permanent * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001 Low choice High choice

(1) Temps. (2) Perms. (3) Temps. (4) Perms.

Standardized β .28 .18 .48 -.02

t-score = 2.38 2.27 4.90 .29

Significance p = .018 .024 .000 .771

intentions. For permanents, the level of job insecurity experienced had minimal

effect on their turnover intentions, shown by the almost flat plot line (β = -.02, NS -

Table 5-7, column 4). Simple slope analyses also indicated that differences between

temporaries and permanents in their turnover intentions were significant when job

137

insecurity was high (β = -.37, t = 4.53, p < .001), but not when job insecurity was low

(β = .10, NS).

Fig. 5-4 Relationship between job insecurity and turnover intentions as a function

of job status and preference for permanent work (a)

High Preference for Permanent Work(Low Choice)

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

LOW Job Insecurity HIGH Job Insecurity

Turn

over

Inte

ntio

ns

TemporariesPermanents

(b)

Low Preference for Permanent Work(High Choice)

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

LOW Job Insecurity HIGH Job Insecurity

Turn

over

Inte

ntio

ns

TemporariesPermanents

138

In summary, hypothesis 3 received mixed support. The results suggest that,

compared to permanents, temporaries feel more constrained than permanents in their

job mobility between temporary and permanent jobs, though these reservations do

not influence work outcomes. Preference for permanent work showed no moderator

or main effects on the psychological well-being, job satisfaction, or affective

commitment of the sample. It did however influence how job insecurity impacted on

the continuance commitment, contextual performance, and turnover intentions of

temporaries and permanents in various ways. For instance, as job insecurity

increases, the data suggests that temporaries that strongly prefer permanent work

reduce their continuance commitment, yet permanents do not.

Hypothesis 4: Employability Hypothesis 4a predicted that temporary employees would report significantly higher

employability than permanent employees. Contrary to prediction, the difference in

employability between permanents (m = 2.28, s.d. = 0.66) and temporaries (m =

2.25, s.d. = 0.67) is not statistically significant (F (1, 360) = 0.68, p > .05).

Hypothesis 4a therefore is unsupported.

Hypothesis 4b predicted that employability, job insecurity, and job status together

would affect employee work outcomes. Hierarchical moderated regression analyses

found that job status and employability did not act as joint moderators of the

relationships between job insecurity and psychological well-being, job satisfaction,

affective commitment, contextual performance or turnover intentions. For

continuance commitment, and intention to change job status, however, significant 3-

way interactions were found. Before reporting those results however, two other

significant 2-way interactions are described.

Job Status as a moderator of Employability

Even though permanents and temporaries did not differ significantly in their levels of

job satisfaction (m = 2.80, s. d. = .68, m = 2.74, s. d. = .72 respectively; F (1, 357) =

.14, p > .05) or employability (shown above), job status was found to moderate the

link between employability and job satisfaction. The regression equation explained

139

25.8% (adjusted) of job satisfaction variance (F (3, 327) = 2.28, p < .05). Of the five

control variables tested in the model, the regression coefficients of two achieved

significance: external locus of control (β = -.16, p < .01) and internal locus of control

(β = .29, p < .001). In the second block of predictors, both job insecurity (β = -.30, p

< .01) and employability (β = -.37, p < .001) reached significance. Results of the

regression analyses presented in Table 5-7 show that relations between employability

and job satisfaction is altered depending on the respondent’s job status.

Table 5-7 Regression results for job satisfaction as a function of job status and employability

Predictors β R2 Δ R2 F change

Step 1 (control variables) Age .10

Tenure .09

External locus of control -.16**

Internal locus of control .29***

Negative affect -.08 .19 .19 16.77***

Step 2 (linear effects) Job statusa (JS) .01

Job insecurity (JI) -.30**

Employability (EMP) -.37*** .26 .07 8.83**

Step 3 (two-way interactions) JI X EMP .01

JI X JS .10

JS X EMP .27** .28 .02 3.28*

Job satisfaction is the criteria variable. Standardized betas of the final model are reported. N = 333 a Coding of job status: 0 = temporary; 1 = permanent * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001

Simple slope analysis indicated that when employability is high, job status influences

the level of job satisfaction, such that permanents have higher job satisfaction than

temporaries (β = .19, t = 2.71, p < .01). The relationship at low levels of

employability shows the reverse pattern. Figure 5-5 shows that when employability

is low, temporaries report significantly higher job satisfaction than permanents (β = -

.18, t = 2.45, p < .05).

140

Fig. 5-5 Relationship between job status and job satisfaction as a function of employability

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

Temporaries Permanents

Job

Satis

fact

ion

LOW EmployabilityHIGH Employability

From the plot lines it is noted that, of those respondents who believed they could

easily find alternate employment (i.e., high employability), it was permanents, as

compared to temporaries, that were most satisfied with their jobs. Correspondingly,

of those sampled who were least confident about their employability, it was

temporaries, rather than permanents, that were most satisfied with their jobs. As

well, it appears that, for permanents, employability appears to have minimal effect in

how they evaluate their job satisfaction, an interpretation also supported by

correlational analyses (r = .17, p < .01). For temporaries though, employability did

have a significant influence on their job satisfaction. Unlike permanents,

temporaries’ employability was negatively associated with job satisfaction (r = -.30,

p < .01 as shown in Table 5-1).

Earlier it was suggested that temporaries feel more constrained than permanents in

their job mobility between job status groups. Perhaps then, for those temporaries not

confident of easily finding alternate employment their current job is more “precious”

to them, thereby enabling them to be more easily satisfied than unsatisfied with their

job. For those temporaries with high employability, in contrast, their current job is

less “valuable”, thereby making such temporaries more discerning when evaluating

how satisfied they are with their current job.

141

In concert with these findings, is the other significant 2-way interaction (F (3, 329) =

2.75, p < .05) detected in the prediction of affective commitment involving job status

and employability. Control variables accounted for 19% (adjusted) of the variance in

affective commitment (Δ R2 = .20, F (5, 335) = 16.91, p < .001). Just as with the

estimation for job satisfaction, the regression coefficients for external locus of

control (β = -.13, p < .05) and internal locus of control (β = .50, p < .001) were

significant in this step. In the second step, the coefficients for both job insecurity (β

= -.38, p < .01) and employability (β = -.40, p < .01) were significant. Next the two-

way interactions terms were added to the predictors, with only the job status by

employability interaction term reaching significance (β = .45, p < .05), with the full

model accounting for 24.4% (adjusted) of variance in the criteria variable. Table 5-8

presents these regression results.

Table 5-8 Regression results for affective commitment as a function of job status and employability

Predictors β R2 Δ R2 F change

Step 1 (control variables) Age .01

Tenure .01

External locus of control -.13*

Internal locus of control .50***

Negative affect .01 .20 .20 16.91***

Step 2 (linear effects) Job statusa (JS) .16

Job insecurity (JI) -.38**

Employability (EMP) -.40** .24 .04 6.40***

Step 3 (two-way interactions) JI X EMP -.13

JI X JS .11

JS X EMP .45* .26 .02 2.75*

Affective commitment is the criteria variable. Standardized betas of the final model are reported. N = 333 a Coding of job status: 0 = temporary; 1 = permanent * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001

Graphical representation of the interaction is shown in Figure 5-6. The regression

lines indicate that when employability is high, permanents report higher affective

commitment than temporaries (β = .24, t = 3.35, p < .001). Just as with the

142

prediction of job satisfaction, the relationship at low levels of employability shows

the reverse pattern. When employability is low however, differences between the

levels of affective commitment reported by temporaries and permanents are not

significantly different (β = -.08, NS).

Fig. 5-6 Relationship between job status and affective commitment as a function of employability

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Temporaries Permanents

Aff

ectiv

e C

omm

itmen

t

LOW EmployabilityHIGH Employability

Note that the plot lines in Figure 5-6 bear a strong resemblance in form to those in

Figure 5-5. So, just as highly employable permanents were more satisfied with their

jobs than temporaries, so too were highly employable permanents more affectively

committed than temporaries. As well, employability again correlated with affective

commitment in opposite directions for permanents (r = .19, p < .01) and temporaries

(r = -.16, NS). The affective commitment of temporaries and permanents not

confident of alternate job opportunities though were similar. Even so, such results

are consistent with the notion that highly employable temporaries might consider

their current job as less “valuable” than those temporaries less employable, and

consequently might invest less of their emotional selves in developing affective

commitment towards their organisation.

Job status X Employability as moderators of Job Insecurity

Recollect that, Hypothesis 4b predicted that highly insecure, yet highly employable

temporaries would have lower continuance commitment than permanent employees.

143

A significant 3-way interaction (i.e., job insecurity X employability X job status) was

in fact found. Main and interactive effects for job insecurity, employability, and job

status in the prediction of continuance commitment are presented in Table 5-9.

Results indicate that the block of control variables accounted for 15% (adjusted) of

variance in continuance commitment (Δ R2 = .16, F (5, 334) = 12.92, p < .001).

Regression coefficients for external locus of control (β = .16, p < .01) and negative

affect (β = .10, p < .05) were significant. In the next step, all three linear effects (i.e.,

JS, JI, and EMP) were significant. From the three possible two-way interactions,

only the job insecurity by job status interaction term reached significance (β = .22, p

< .01). Supporting hypothesis 4 (b), the three-way effect was statistically significant

(Δ R2 = .01, F (1, 327) = 4.36, p < .05) with the full model accounting for 37.5%

(adjusted) of variance in continuance commitment.

The interaction of high employability and job insecurity levels on continuance

commitment across job status groups are depicted graphically in Figure 5-7.

Inspection of Figure 5-7 (a) shows the regression lines indicate that when

employability is high, increases in job insecurity have a negative effect on the

continuance commitment of temporaries (β = -.38, p < .001) and no effect for

permanents (β = .07, NS). In support of hypothesis 4, the continuance commitment

of temporaries was significantly lower than that of permanents when both

employability and job insecurity were high (β = .50, t = 5.11, p < .001). Figure 5-7

(b) shows employees reactions to job insecurity when employability is low, though

these results are not significant (Table 5-9, columns 1 & 2) for either job status

group. Simple slope analyses also indicated that differences between temporaries

and permanents in continuance commitment were significant when job insecurity

was high (β = .18, t = 2.22, p < .05), but not when job insecurity was low (β = .10,

NS).

144

Table 5-9 Regression results for continuance commitment as a function of job insecurity, job status and employability

Predictors β R2 Δ R2 F change

Step 1 (control variables) Age .01

Tenure .08

External locus of control .16**

Internal locus of control -.01

Negative affect .10* .16 .16 12.92***

Step 2 (linear effects) Job statusa (JS) .21***

Job insecurity (JI) -.29***

Employability (EMP) -.56*** .37 .21 37.31***

Step 3 (two-way interactions) JI X JS .22**

JI X EMP -.11

JS X EMP .13 .39 .02 2.71*

Step 4 (three-way interaction) JI X EMP X JS .17* .40 .01 4.36*

Continuance commitment is the criteria variable. Standardized betas of the final model are reported. N = 339 a Coding of job status: 0 = temporary; 1 = permanent * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001 Low employability High employability

(1) Temps. (2) Perms. (3) Temps. (4) Perms.

Standardized β -.19 -.11 -.38 .07

t-score = 1.79 1.45 3.50 .76

Significance p = .074 .149 .001 .446

145

Fig. 5-7 Relationship between job insecurity and continuance commitment as a

function of job status and employability (a)

High Employability

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

LOW Job Insecurity HIGH Job Insecurity

Con

tinua

nce

Com

mitm

ent

TemporariesPermanents

(b)

Low Employability

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

LOW Job Insecurity HIGH Job Insecurity

Con

tinua

nce

Com

mitm

ent

TemporariesPermanents

146

Table 5-10 presents the regression results providing support for the interactive effects

of job insecurity, job status, and employability in the prediction of intention to

change job status. The full model explained 39.6% (adjusted) of the variance in the

criteria variable and the overall relationship was significant (F (1, 325) = 6.82, p <

.01). Results indicate that the block of control variables accounted for 6.7%

(adjusted) of variance in intention to change job status, with only external locus of

control (β = .09, p < .05) reaching significance.

With respect to the main effects of the independent variables, both job status (β = -

.54, p < .001) and job insecurity (β = .35, p < .001) were significant, adding 30%

variance. Next the three 2-way product terms were added to the predictors, with only

the job status by employability term failing to reach significance. Support was thus

provided for the prediction that the interaction of job insecurity and employability on

intentions to change job status had different effects for permanent and temporary

employees.

Plots for the interactions for job insecurity and employability on intention to change

job status across job status groups are represented in Figure 5-8. Simple slope results

show that high employability did not moderate the effects of job insecurity on

intentions to change job status for either temporaries or permanents (Table 5-10,

columns 3 & 4). Differences between temporaries and permanents in their intentions

to change job status at both high levels of job insecurity (β = -.51, t = 5.31, p < .001)

and low levels of job insecurity (β = -.84, t = 10.93, p < .001) were however

significant, thereby supporting hypothesis 4.

Although not predicted, significant results were found when employability was low

(see Figure 5-8b). Specifically, when employability was low, increases in job

insecurity had a positive effect on intentions to change job status of temporaries (β =

.52, p < .001). For permanents though the relationship was negligible (β = .01, NS).

147

Table 5-10 Regression results for intention to change job status as a function of job insecurity, job status, and employability

Predictors β R2 Δ R2 F change

Step 1 (control variables) Age .00

Tenure -.03

External locus of control .09*

Internal locus of control .01

Negative affect .01 .08 .08 5.87***

Step 2 (linear effects) Job statusa (JS) -.54***

Job insecurity (JI) .35***

Employability (EMP) -.13 .38 .30 52.03***

Step 3 (two-way interactions) JI X JS -.23**

JI X EMP -.19*

JS x EMP .11 .41 .03 5.11**

Step 4 (three-way interaction) JI X EMP X JS .21** .42 .01 6.82**

Intention to change job status is the criteria variable. Standardized betas of the final model are reported. N = 326 a Coding of job status: 0 = temporary; 1 = permanent * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001 Low employability High employability

(1) Temps. (2) Perms. (3) Temps. (4) Perms.

Standardized β .52 .01 .18 .12

t-score = 5.10 .19 1.64 1.36

Significance p = .000 .852 .101 .175

Again the differences between temporaries and permanents in their intentions to

change job status were significant at both high levels of job insecurity (β = -.45, t =

5.37, p < .001) and at low levels of job insecurity (β = -.37, t = 3.90, p < .001).

148

Fig. 5-8 Relationship between job insecurity and intention to change job status as a function of job status and employability

(a)

High Employability

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

LOW Job Insecurity HIGH Job Insecurity

Inte

ntio

n to

Cha

nge

Job

Stat

us

TemporariesPermanents

(b)

Low Employability

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

LOW Job Insecurity HIGH Job Insecurity

Inte

ntio

n to

Cha

nge

Job

Stat

us

TemporariesPermanents

149

In summary, hypothesis 4 received partial support. Unexpectedly, permanents and

temporaries were found to have similar levels of perceived employability, yet

between group differences did exist. The results show that employability had no

effect on how permanents evaluate their job satisfaction or the extent of their

organisational attachment (affective commitment). For temporaries though,

employability did have a significant influence on their job satisfaction and affective

commitment. Given the earlier finding that, compared to permanents temporaries

feel more constrained about their job mobility between job status groups, it seems

reasonable to speculate that temporaries less sure of finding alternate employment

might value their current job more highly, thereby being more readily satisfied.

Highly employable temporaries, alternately, the data suggests might be more difficult

to please, since with many job alternatives they can afford to be more fastidious

when assessing their jobs. The findings also suggest that highly employable

temporaries might invest less of themselves in developing an emotional attachment

to their organisation, compared to equally employable permanents.

Hypothesis 5: Subjective job dependency Hypothesis 5 concerns how job insecurity and job dependency interact in their

effects on work outcomes. Employees who report high job insecurity and a high

degree of job dependency are hypothesized to report less positive work outcomes.

Also within this group, the hypothesis stated temporary employees would report less

favourable work outcomes than permanent employees. Subjective job dependency

(SJD) was tested as a moderator in the job insecurity and work outcomes relationship

but no significant relationships were indicated for psychological well-being, job

satisfaction, affective or continuance commitment or turnover intentions. Two

significant 2-way interactions were however detected. In predicting contextual

performance, SJD and job insecurity interacted significantly and the interaction

between job status and SJD was identified as a significant predictor of intentions to

change job status.

Job Dependency as a moderator of Job Insecurity

Job dependency moderated the relationship between job insecurity and contextual

performance. In step 1, the control variables were entered as predictors of contextual

150

performance and accounted for 16.7% (adjusted) of the variance (Δ R2 = .18, F (5,

335) = 14.60, p < .001). Only the internal locus of control regression coefficient was

significant (β = .26, p < .001). None of the linear coefficients were significant in step

2, yet the addition of these predictors to the model was significant. In the third step

the three possible two-way interactions terms were added to the predictors, with only

the subjective job dependency by job insecurity interaction term being significant (β

= .09, p < .01). The overall model accounted for 21.1% (adjusted) of variance in

contextual performance. Results of the regression analyses are presented in Table 5-

11.

Table 5-11 Regression results for contextual performance as a function of job dependency and job insecurity

Predictors β R2 Δ R2 F change

Step 1 (control variables) Age .01

Tenure -.01

External locus of control -.06

Internal locus of control .26***

Negative affect -.06 .18 .18 14.60***

Step 2 (linear effects) Job statusa (JS) .02

Job insecurity (JI) -.10

Subjective job dependency (SJD)

.06 .22 .04 8.21***

Step 3 (two-way interactions) JI X SJD .09**

JI X JS -.09

JS x SJD .02 .24 .02 2.89*

Contextual performance is the criteria variable. Standardized betas of the final model are reported. a Coding of job status: 0 = temporary; 1 = permanent * p < .05 ** p < .01 *** p < .001

151

Figure 5-9 shows the shape of the significant interaction: among employees that were

highly dependent on their jobs, those who felt insecure about their job had

significantly lower contextual performance than those who felt secure, though

unexpectedly temporaries and permanents reacted the same way. Simple slope

supports such an interpretation. Irrespective of job status, for those highly dependent

on their job, increased job insecurity was significantly related to lower levels of

contextual performance (β = -.31, p < .001), whereas no significant relationship was

apparent for those with low job dependency (β = -.06, NS).

Fig. 5-9 Relationship between job insecurity and contextual performance as a function of subjective job dependency

3

4

5

6

LOW Job Insecurity HIGH Job Insecurity

Con

text

ual P

erfo

rman

ce

Low Job DependencyHigh Job Dependency

Job Status as a moderator of Job Dependency

The second significant 2-way interaction effects found involved subjective job

dependency and job status. Again, the control variables were entered first

accounting for a mere 6.7% (adjusted) of the variance in intention to change job

status (Δ R2 = .08, F (5, 333) = 5.88, p < .001). Only the external locus of control

regression coefficient reached significance (β = .13, p < .05). The addition of job

status, job insecurity and subjective job dependency to the model was significant (Δ

R2 = .38, F (3, 330) = 51.65, p < .001), explaining a further 29.4% (adjusted) of

variance in the prediction of intention to change job status. Of the three two-way

interactions terms entered as predictors, both subjective job dependency by job status

(β = -.22, p < .05), and job insecurity by job status (β = -.55, p < .01) reached

152

significance. The full model accounted for 40.6% (adjusted) of variance in the

criteria variable. Findings of the regression analyses are shown in Table 5-12.

Table 5-12 Regression results for intention to change job status as a function of job status and job dependency

Predictors β R2 Δ R2 F change

Step 1 (control variables) Age .01

Tenure -.01

External locus of control .13*

Internal locus of control .01

Negative affect .01 .08 .08 5.88***

Step 2 (linear effects) Job statusa (JS) -1.64***

Job insecurity (JI) .64***

Subjective job dependency (SJD)

.16* .38 .30 51.65***

Step 3 (two-way interactions) JI X SJD .03

JI X JS -.55**

JS x SJD -.22* .41 .03 5.83**

Intention to change job status is the criteria variable. Standardized betas of the final model are reported. a Coding of job status: 0 = temporary; 1 = permanent * p < .05 ** p < .01 *** p < .001

Simple slope analysis indicated that when job dependency is high, job status

influences respondents’ intention to change job status, such that temporaries report

higher intentions than permanents (β = -.67, t = 10.01, p < .001). A similar pattern is

observed at low levels of job dependency. Figure 5-10 shows that when job

dependency is low, temporaries report significantly higher intentions to change job

status than permanents (β = -.48, t = 7.85, p < .001).

153

Fig. 5-10 Relationship between job status and intention to change job status as a function of subjective job dependency

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

Temporaries Permanents

Inte

ntio

n to

Cha

nge

Job

Sta

tus

LOW Job DependencyHIGH Job Dependency

Hypothesis 6: Organisational social support Hypothesis 6 concerns the role that organisational social support plays in the job

insecurity-work outcome relationships. Regression analyses found that job status

and organisational social support did not act as joint moderators of the relationships

between job insecurity and psychological well-being, job satisfaction, affective or

continuance commitment, or turnover intentions. For contextual performance though

a significant 3-way interaction was found. Before reporting those results however,

two significant 2-way interactions are described.

Organisational Social Support as a moderator of Job Insecurity

Organisational social support was found to moderate the link between job insecurity

and affective commitment, though temporaries and permanents did not differ in their

reactions. Control variables accounted for 19.1% (adjusted) of the variance in

affective commitment (Δ R2 = .20, F (5, 335) = 17.05, p < .001), with only the

regression coefficient for internal locus of control (β = .38, p < .001) reaching

significance. As for the main effects, the coefficients for both job insecurity (β = -

.34, p < .01) and organisational social support (β = .61, p < .001) were significant,

explaining a further 8.2% of variance in the criteria variable. When the two-way

154

interactions terms were added to the predictors, only the job insecurity by

organisational social support interaction term reached significance (β = -.27, p < .05).

The full model accounted for 28.4% (adjusted) of variance in affective commitment.

Table 5-13 shows these regression results.

Table 5-13 Regression results for affective commitment as a function of job insecurity and organisational social support

Predictors β R2 Δ R2 F change

Step 1 (control variables)

Age .01

Tenure .01

External locus of control -.07

Internal locus of control .38***

Negative affect .14 .20 .20 17.05***

Step 2 (linear effects)

Job statusa (JS) .18

Job insecurity (JI) -.34**

Orgl. social support (ORGSS) .61*** .28 .08 12.62***

Step 3 (two-way interactions)

JI X ORGSS -.27*

JI X JS .09

JS X ORGSS -.26 .31 .03 3.64*

Affective commitment is the criteria variable. Standardized betas of the final model are reported. N = 332 a Coding of job status: 0 = temporary; 1 = permanent * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001

In accordance with expectations, simple slope analysis indicated that at high levels of

organisational social support there were significant differences in affective

commitment levels, such that the highly job-insecure reported lower affective

commitment than did the job secure (β = -.32, t = 4.53, p < .001). Figure 5-11 shows

a similar pattern at low levels of organisational social support. Yet, at low levels of

organisational social support individual differences in the level of job insecurity

experienced had no significant effect on the extent of affective commitment reported

(β = -.07, NS). Highly insecure respondents, whether permanent or temporary,

155

therefore were less emotionally attached to their organisation but high, rather than

low organisational social support ameliorated these effects.

Fig. 5-11 Relationship between job insecurity and affective commitment as a function of organisational social support

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

LOW Job Insecurity HIGH Job Insecurity

Aff

ectiv

e C

omm

itmen

t

LOW OrgalSocial Support

HIGH OrgalSocial Support

Job Status as a moderator of Organisational Social Support

The second significant 2-way interaction effect detected involved organisational

social support and job status in the prediction of intention to change job status.

Permanents and temporaries differed significantly in their intentions to change job

status (F (1, 357) = 63.44, p > .001), such that temporaries were more disposed to

change to permanent work (m = 3.11, s. d. = 1.47), than permanents were inclined to

switch to temporary work (m = 1.54, s. d. = .91). The level of organisational social

support perceived was found to influence temporaries’ intentions, but not the

intentions of permanents.

Control variables accounted for only 6.7% (adjusted) of the variance in intentions to

change job status (Δ R2 = .08, F (5, 332) = 5.84, p < .001), with only the external

locus of control regression coefficient reaching significance (β = .13, p < .05). The

addition of job status, job insecurity and organisational social support to the model

was significant (Δ R2 = .37, F (3, 329) = 52.01, p < .001), explaining a further 29.4%

(adjusted) of variance in the prediction of intention to change job status. Of the three

two-way interactions terms entered as predictors, both organisational social support

156

by job status (β = -.47, p < .05), and job insecurity by job status (β = -.61, p < .001)

were significant. The full model accounted for 38.6% (adjusted) of variance in the

criteria variable. Results of the regression analyses are shown in Table 5-14.

Table 5-14 Regression results for intention to change job status as a function of job

status and organisational social support Predictors β R2 Δ R2 F change

Step 1 (control variables)

Age .01

Tenure -.01

External locus of control .13*

Internal locus of control -.03

Negative affect .07 .08 .08 5.84***

Step 2 (linear effects)

Job statusa (JS) -1.57***

Job insecurity (JI) .68***

Organisational social support

(ORGSS)

.40* .37 .29 52.01***

Step 3 (two-way interactions)

JI X ORGSS .13

JI X JS -.61***

JS X ORGSS -.47* .40 .03 5.71**

Intention to change job status is the criteria variable. Standardized betas of the final model are reported. N = 329 a Coding of job status: 0 = temporary; 1 = permanent * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001

Simple slope analysis showed that when organisational social support is high, job

status influences respondents’ intention to change job status, such that temporaries

report higher intentions than permanents (β = -.63, t = 9.72, p < .001). The

relationship at low levels of organisational social support shows a similar pattern.

Figure 5-12 shows that when organisational social support is low, temporaries report

significantly higher intentions to change job status than permanents (β = -.49, t =

7.64, p < .001). Thus, organisational social support appears not to influence

permanents intentions regarding changing to temporary work. For temporaries

though, high organisational social support, a benefit not usually associated with

157

temporary jobs, appears to reinforce temporaries’ resolve to change to permanent

work.

Fig. 5-12 Relationship between intention to change job status and job status as a function of organisational social support

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

Temporaries Permanents

Inte

ntio

n to

Cha

nge

Job

Stat

us

LOW Orgal SocialSupportHIGH Orgal SocialSupport

Job status X Organisational Social Support as moderators of Job Insecurity

As noted earlier, only one significant joint moderator effect was found for

organisational social support and job status. Main and interactive effects for job

insecurity, organisational social support, and job status in the prediction of contextual

performance are presented in Table 5-15. Results indicated that the control variables

as predictors of contextual performance accounted for 16.8% (adjusted) of variance

(Δ R2 = .18, F (5, 334) = 14.67, p < .001). Of the control variables, regression

coefficients for both age (β = .27, p < .001) and internal locus of control (β = .25, p <

.001) were significant. Of the linear predictors, only organisational social support (β

= .24, p < .01) reached significance. None of the three possible two-way interactions

reached significance, though these predictors added a significant 4.2% explanation to

the variance in contextual performance. The three-way interaction was statistically

significant (Δ R2 = .02, F (1, 327) = 6.25, p < .05) with the full model accounting for

24.1% (adjusted) of variance in contextual performance.

158

Table 5-15 Regression results for contextual performance as a function of job insecurity, job status, and organisational social support

Predictors β R2 Δ R2 F change

Step 1 (control variables) Age .27***

Tenure -.06

External locus of control -.06

Internal locus of control .25***

Negative affect -.06 .18 .18 14.67***

Step 2 (linear effects) Job statusa (JS) .01

Job insecurity (JI) -.13

Organl. social support (ORGSS) .24** .21 .03 4.40**

Step 3 (two-way interactions) JI X JS -.05

JI X ORGSS -.01

JS X ORGSS -.13 .25 .04 6.14***

Step 4 (three-way interaction) JI X ORGSS X JS -.22* .27 .02 6.25*

Contextual performance is the criteria variable. Standardized betas of the final model are reported. N = 339 a Coding of job status: 0 = temporary; 1 = permanent * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001 Low organisational social support High organisational social support

(1) Temps. (2) Perms. (3) Temps. (4) Perms.

Standardized β -.12 .05 -.14 -.44

t-score = 1.04 .62 1.21 5.03

Significance p = .300 .538 .226 .000

Figure 5-13 illustrates the nature of the job insecurity by organisational social

support interaction according to job status. Simple slope analysis results (Table 5-

15, column 3) show that when organisational social support is high, increases in job

insecurity have a negative effect on the contextual performance of permanents (β = -

.44, p < .001), as shown by the downward sloping plot line (Fig. 5-13a). For

temporaries though, there is no such significant effect (β = -.14, NS). Providing

partial support for hypothesis 6, the contextual performance of temporaries tended to

159

be significantly higher (β = -.21, t = 1.93, p < .055) than that of permanents when

both organisational social support and job insecurity were high. When organisational

social support was low, (Table 5-15, columns 1 & 2), simple slope tests indicated

that contextual performance levels of temporaries and permanents are unaffected by

the level of job insecurity perceived, as illustrated by the almost flat plot lines in

Figure 5-13b.

Fig. 5-13 Relationship between job insecurity and contextual performance as a function of job status and organisational social support

(a)

High Organisational Social Support

5

5.2

5.4

5.6

5.8

6

6.2

LOW Job Insecurity HIGH Job Insecurity

Con

text

ual P

efor

man

ce

TemporariesPermanents

(b)

Low Organisational Social Support

5.2

5.25

5.3

5.35

5.4

5.45

5.5

5.55

5.6

LOW Job Insecurity HIGH Job Insecurity

Con

text

ual P

erfo

rman

ce

TemporariesPermanents

160

Hypothesis 7: Family social support Hypothesis 7 predicted that highly insecure temporaries would report stronger

moderating effects on work outcomes from high family social support than would

permanents. No significant joint moderator effects for family social support and job

status were detected in the prediction of psychological well-being, affective or

continuance commitment or intentions to change job status or turnover intentions.

Two significant 3-way interactions however were detected. One relates to the

prediction of job satisfaction and the other, contextual performance.

Job status X Family Social Support as moderators of Job Insecurity

The first significant 3-way interaction involving family social support and job status

as joint moderators of job insecurity concerns the prediction of job satisfaction.

Table 5-16 presents the findings providing support for a 3-way interaction, but the

effects of family social support were in the opposite direction to that hypothesised.

Of the control variables, the regression coefficients for age (β = .15, p < .01),

external (β = -.13, p < .01) and internal (β = .22, p < .001) loci of control were

statistically significant in the prediction of job satisfaction. Only job insecurity (β = -

.33, p < .001) was significant in the second block of predictors. The interaction

between job status and family social support (β = .15, p < .01) was the only

statistically significant two-way interaction in the next step. Lastly, the three-way

effect was statistically significant (Δ R2 = .01, F (1, 327) = 4.70, p < .05) with the

full model accounting for 24.7% (adjusted) of variance in job satisfaction.

The interactions of job insecurity and family social support on job satisfaction across

job status groups are depicted graphically in Figure 5-14. When family social

support was high, increases in job insecurity had a negative effect on the job

satisfaction of permanents (β = -.30, p < .001), as illustrated in Figure 5-14 (a).

Figure 5-14 (a) also shows that the relationship between job insecurity and job

satisfaction was unaffected by high levels of family social support for temporaries (β

= -.21, NS, column 3 in Table 5-16). Contrary to prediction, differences between

161

Table 5-16 Regression results for job satisfaction as a function of job insecurity, job status, and family social support

Predictors β R2 Δ R2 F change

Step 1 (control variables) Age .15**

Tenure .08

External locus of control -.13**

Internal locus of control .22***

Negative affect -.03 .20 .20 16.96***

Step 2 (linear effects) Job statusa (JS) -.02

Job insecurity (JI) -.33***

Family social support (FAMSS) -.02 .24 .04 5.62**

Step 3 (two-way interactions) JI X JS .14

JI X FAMSS .11

JS x FAMSS .15** .26 .02 3.24*

Step 4 (three-way interaction) JI X FAMSS X JS -.18* .27 .01 4.70*

Job satisfaction is the criteria variable. Standardized betas of the final model are reported. N = 328 a Coding of job status: 0 = temporary; 1 = permanent * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001 Low family social support High family social support

(1) Temps. (2) Perms. (3) Temps. (4) Perms.

Standardized β -.39 -.07 -.21 -.30

t-score = 3.36 .82 1.78 3.47

Significance p = .001 .411 .076 .001

temporaries and permanents in job satisfaction at high levels of job insecurity were

not significant (β = .04, NS). Although not hypothesized, simple slope analysis

showed significant results when family social support was low (Table 5-16, columns

2 & 3). Specifically, for permanents the absence of family social support did not

influence the impact of job insecurity on job satisfaction. In contrast, for temporaries

increased job insecurity had a negative effect on job satisfaction (β = -.39, p < .001),

as illustrated in Figure 5-14 (b).

162

Fig. 5-14 Relationship between job insecurity and job satisfaction as a function of

job status and family social support (a)

High Family Social Support

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

LOW Job Insecurity HIGH Job Insecurity

Job

Sat

isfa

ctio

n

TemporariesPermanents

(b)

Low Family Social Support

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

LOW Job Insecurity HIGH Job Insecurity

Job

Sat

isfa

ctio

n

TemporariesPermanents

163

The second significant 3-way interaction found concerned job status and family

social support as joint moderators of the job insecurity-contextual relationship. Main

and interactive effects are presented in Table 5-17. Results indicate that the control

variables as predictors of contextual performance accounted for 16.7% (adjusted) of

variance (Δ R2 = .18, F (5, 335) = 14.60, p < .001). Regression coefficients for both

age (β = .30, p < .001) and internal locus of control (β = .27, p < .001) were

significant. Of the linear predictors, only family social support (β = .15, p < .01)

reached significance. None of the three possible two-way interactions reached

significance. The three-way interaction was statistically significant (Δ R2 = .02, F

(1, 328) = 6.12, p < .05) with the full model accounting for 21% (adjusted) of

variance in contextual performance.

The interactions of job insecurity and family social support on contextual

performance across job status groups are depicted graphically in Figure 5-15. The

simple slope analysis results (Table 5-17, columns 3 & 4) show that when family

social support is high, increases in job insecurity had a negative effect on the

contextual performance of permanents (β = -.33, p < .001), as illustrated in Figure 5-

15 (a). Figure 5-15 (a) also shows that the relationship between high family social

support and contextual performance for temporaries was negligible (β = -.08, NS,

column 3 in Table 5-17). Contrary to hypothesis 7, the contextual performance of

temporaries was not significantly higher than that of permanents when family social

support and job insecurity were high (β = -.08, NS). Although not hypothesized,

simple slope analysis showed significant results when family social support was low

(Table 5-17, column 1). Specifically, for permanents the absence of family social

support did not influence the impact of job insecurity on contextual performance.

For temporaries though, increased job insecurity had a negative effect on contextual

performance (β = -.23, p < .05), as illustrated in Figure 5-15 (b). Differences

between temporaries and permanents in contextual performance at either high levels

of job insecurity (β = .14, NS) or low levels of job insecurity (β = -.08) though were

not significant.

164

Table 5-17 Regression results for contextual performance as a function of job insecurity, job status, and family social support

Predictors β R2 Δ R2 F change

Step 1 (control variables) Age .30***

Tenure -.06

External locus of control -.08

Internal locus of control .27***

Negative affect -.05 .18 .18 14.60***

Step 2 (linear effects) Job statusa (JS) .03

Job insecurity (JI) -.15

Family social support (FAMSS) .15** .22 .04 5.36**

Step 3 (two-way interactions) JI X JS -.02

JI X FAMSS .09

JS x FAMSS -.02 .22 .00 1.00

Step 4 (three-way interaction) JI X FAMSS X JS -.21* .24 .02 6.12*

Contextual performance is the criteria variable. Standardized betas of the final model are reported. N = 329 a Coding of job status: 0 = temporary; 1 = permanent * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001 Low family social support High family social support

(1) Temps. (2) Perms. (3) Temps. (4) Perms.

Standardized β -.23 -.01 -.08 -.33

t-score = 2.01 .08 .62 3.76

Significance p = .045 .940 .533 .000

165

Fig. 5-15 Relationship between job insecurity and contextual performance as a function of job status and family social support

(a)

High Family Social Support

4

4.2

4.4

4.6

4.8

5

5.2

5.4

5.6

5.8

6

LOW Job Insecurity HIGH Job Insecurity

Con

text

ual P

erfo

rman

ce

TemporariesPermanents

(b)

Low Family Social Support

4

4.2

4.4

4.6

4.8

5

5.2

5.4

5.6

5.8

6

LOW Job Insecurity HIGH Job Insecurity

Con

text

ual P

erfo

rman

ce

TemporariesPermanents

In conclusion, the results of the data analyses for study one are now complete. These

findings are discussed in the next Chapter.

166

Chapter 6: Discussion – Study 1

The purpose of this Chapter is to discuss the results of study one’s data analyses

reported in the preceding Chapter. Two general aims guided this study. The first

was to replicate studies examining the relationships between perceived job insecurity

and employee well-being and work attitudes. The second objective was to

investigate whether a number of empirically proposed variables might moderate

relations between job insecurity and these employee reactions. Overall, the results of

analysing these relationships provide support for the view that it is empirically useful

to confine the conceptualization of job insecurity to the extent of correspondence

between desire for job continuity and expectations of job continuity. Doing so,

thereby allows examination of whether variations in “powerlessness” have any

differential effects on reactions to job insecurity.

The Chapter begins with a discussion of the relationships concerning perceived job

insecurity and some of its correlates followed by a section on the consequences of

job insecurity. Then findings relating to each moderator in the proposed research

model are discussed. The Chapter concludes with a section on the direct effects of

temporary job status on job insecurity perceptions.

Correlates of job insecurity

In Chapter 2 a number of demographic and individual characteristics are discussed

that are likely to influence how vulnerable an employee may feel about their

susceptibility to job loss, thus raising or lowering their job insecurity perceptions.

These characteristics include gender, age, marital status, educational level, tenure,

external locus of control, internal locus of control and negative affectivity. The

confounding effects found for each characteristic are discussed below in detail.

Numerous demographic variables have been studied in relation to job insecurity in a

large number of studies as discussed in Chapter 2. The most frequently studied

demographic characteristics include gender, age, marital status, educational level,

167

and tenure. Generally results to date have been inconclusive. Current findings show

that the pattern of interrelations among demographics and job insecurity were weak

(less than .20) and non-significant. These findings suggest that job insecurity is

unrelated to gender, marital status, educational level, or length of time in the

organisation, consistent with some other research (e.g., De Witte, 1999; Hellgren &

Sverke, 2003; Ruvio & Rosenblatt, 1999).

Other variables classified as correlates of job insecurity include negative affect,

internal locus of control, and external locus of control, as outlined in Chapter 2.

Findings from the current study add only weak support to the view that negative

affect is positively related to individual variations in job insecurity perceptions, since

only low associations were found. A possible explanation for these results concerns

the research settings. Unlike the current research, studies finding significant effects

for negative affect were conducted in contexts of organisational downsizing and

imminent lay-offs (Hellgren et al., 1999; Mak & Mueller, 2000, 2001; Roskies et al.,

1993). Chen and Spector (1991) conclude that the effects of negative affect are

different for acute stressors and chronic stressors. Without an impending job threat

in the research settings then, the failure to find support for a stronger role of negative

affect in the present study is not so perplexing.

Results from the current study show that internal locus of control was strongly

negatively related to job insecurity. These findings suggest that employees that are

high ‘internals’ believe that job threats are contingent upon their own behaviour,

thereby believing they can counteract any job threat. Similarly, external locus of

control demonstrated a weak, yet significant association with job insecurity. In

explanation, these findings imply that high ‘externals’, through their strong belief

that external events control their fate, have a greater sense of powerlessness in

avoiding or minimizing any job threat. Such findings are consistent with those in

other studies (Ashford et al., 1989; Borg & Elizur, 1992).

In summary, findings from the current study suggest researchers should consider

placing both internal locus of control and external locus of control in any model

investigating job insecurity. Based on these findings, it is recommended that future

168

research examining perceived job insecurity include these variables as controls.

Failure to do so might contribute to flawed conclusions.

Consequences of job insecurity

The preceding section discusses findings where temporaries and permanent differed

in their reactions to job insecurity. The focus of this section concerns areas of

similarities in how temporaries and permanents reacted to job insecurity. Hypothesis

1 predicted that, regardless of job status, job insecurity would have negative effects

on employee psychological well-being, job satisfaction, affective commitment and

contextual performance. As well, job insecurity would be positively associated with

continuance commitment and turnover intentions. Findings for each of these

consequences of job insecurity are now discussed.

Of the six reactions to job insecurity assessed, two (psychological well-being and

continuance commitment) were not statistically significant. The results showed a

weak negative association between job insecurity and psychological well-being (r = -

.09, NS for permanents; r = -.27, p < .01 for temporaries). Using the same measure,

(i.e., GHQ-12; Goldberg, 1979), De Witte (1999) reports a similar weak correlation

(r = -0.14, p < .01). Lower levels of psychological well-being for the insecure are

reported consistently in other research (Burchell, 1994; Hellgren & Sverke, 2003).

Other psychological reactions to job insecurity include anxiety, psychological

distress, and depression (e.g., Mohr, 2000; Kuhnert, Sims & Lahey, 1989; Roskies et

al., 1993). Once the control variables were accounted for in the current study, no

significant effects on psychological well-being for job insecurity were found (1a).

An explanation for this finding is that perhaps variations of well-being scores in the

sample (SD = .5, Organ. 1 & SD = .43, Organ. 2) were too restricted to detect any

effects. A possible explanation for this range restriction is discussed later and

concerns the study’s low response rate.

Current findings corroborate previous research that suggests perceived job insecurity

is associated with significantly reduced levels of job satisfaction as hypothesized

(1b). These findings are consistent with other studies (e.g., Ameen et al., 1995;

169

Ashford et al., 1989; Davy et al., 1991; Hellgren & Sverke, 2001; O'Quin &

LoTempio, 1998; Probst & Brubaker, 2001). Analogously, the results showed that

job insecurity predicted significant reductions in affective commitment (1c),

consistent with an extensive range of research on this variable (e.g., Adkins et al.,

2001; Ameen et al., 1995; Arnold & Feldman, 1982; Ashford et al., 1989; Blau,

1994; Hui & Lee, 2000; King, 2000; Rosenblatt & Ruvio, 1996; Rosenblatt et al.,

1999; Van Vuuren et al., 1991a).

As discussed in Chapter 2, to date, little is known about how job insecurity affects

contextual performance. Inasmuch as satisfaction and commitment are important

determinants of extra-role behaviour (MacKenzie et al., 1998) insecure employees,

being less satisfied and committed than their more secure counterparts, might be

reluctant to engage in extra-role behaviours, such as spontaneous acts of cooperation.

The current findings support such a view. Job insecurity predicted significantly

decreased levels of contextual performance (1d).

A possible explanation for such a reaction is that individuals respond to stressful

environments with a variety of coping strategies; some regulate their emotions, while

others deal directly with the problem (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). To withdraw from

engaging in contextual performance activities therefore might be how the job-

insecure cope with job uncertainty. Alternately, as explained earlier, diminished job

security might also be viewed as a violation of the psychological contract

(Greenhalgh, 1983a; Rousseau & McLean Parks, 1993). Consistent with social

exchange theory predictions (Blau, 1964), the job-insecure therefore restore the

imbalance in the exchange relationship by reducing or withdrawing contextual

performance.

Contrary to predictions, job insecurity did not predict increased continuance

commitment (1e). As explained earlier, a defining characteristic of job insecurity is

uncertainty and ambiguity (Barling & Kelloway, 1996; Joelson & Wahlquist, 1987;

Roskies & Louis-Guerin, 1990). Since uncertainty avoidance is positively related to

continuance commitment (Clugston et al., 2000), it was expected that job insecurity

and continuance commitment would be positively related. The results show that for

170

permanents this was the case (r = .15, p < .05). For temporaries though the

relationship was not significant (r = -.16, NS).

As expected, job insecurity predicted significantly higher turnover intentions (1f).

Just as employees withdraw from engaging in extra-role activities in response to job

uncertainty, so too are such employees more inclined to leave their current employer.

These findings are consistent with other research (Ameen, et al., 1995; Ashford et al.,

1989; Barling & Kelloway, 1996; Dekker & Schaufeli, 1995; Greenhalgh, 1982;

O'Quin & LoTempio, 1998; Rosenblatt & Ruvio, 1996; Rosenblatt et al., 1999;

Ruvio & Rosenblatt, 1999; Tivendell & Bourbonnais, 2000).

Moderators of job insecurity

Chapter 2 reviews the job insecurity literature and argues that to include

powerlessness into the measurement of job insecurity as a single construct does not

allow any examination of potential interactive effects between aspects of

powerlessness and job insecurity. Thus valuable information is lost if those control

aspects are subsumed within the variable itself. Study one investigated different

sources of powerlessness so that, as Jacobson (1991) suggests, interactions can be

explored to ascertain whether various forms of control have differential effects on

reactions to job insecurity.

Three aspects of control were examined in study one: perceived choice in job status,

employability, and subjective job dependency. Each of these moderators was further

argued to interact with temporary job status to either attenuate or exacerbate

employee reactions to job insecurity. Social support from two different sources,

namely co-workers and supervisors, and family and friends, are also investigated as

moderators in the job insecurity and work outcome relationships.

As stated in Chapter 3, few studies (exceptions are: De Witte & Näswall, 2003; Klein

Hesselink & Van Vuuren, 1999; Parker et al., 2002) have considered whether

temporary and permanent employees react to job insecurity in the same way. In

study one, job status was predicted to have both main effects, and joint moderator

171

effects with the proposed moderators already noted, together with choice in job status

on reactions to job insecurity. Consideration of how a temporary’s level of volition

for temporary work might interact with their degree of job insecurity has not been

previously undertaken. The results of this study point out that differentiating

between temporary and permanent employees was important to study the

relationships between job insecurity and the outcome variables. Significant findings

for each of study one’s moderators are now discussed.

Choice in job status: how it influences employees’ reactions to job insecurity – Hypothesis 3

Hypothesis 3 predicted that the relationship between job insecurity and work

outcomes would be jointly moderated by job status and choice in job status.

Specifically, when choice in job status is low and job insecurity is high, it was

hypothesized that temporaries would indicate higher turnover intentions (supported),

and lower psychological well-being, job satisfaction, affective commitment,

contextual performance (partially supported) and continuance commitment

(supported) than permanent employees.

Findings from the current study indicate that job status and choice in job status,

operationalized as preference for permanent work, moderated relations between job

insecurity and turnover intentions. For ease of interpretation, temporaries that

indicated a strong preference for permanent work (i.e., low choice in job status) are

referred to in this section as involuntary temporaries. The findings suggest that the

negative effects of job insecurity were exacerbated for involuntary temporaries,

increasing their turnover intentions (Fig. 5-4a). Involuntary temporaries also had

higher turnover intentions than permanents, even when little job insecurity was

experienced. These findings therefore suggest that involuntary temporaries are more

intent to turnover than permanents, and those intentions are even higher when high

job insecurity is experienced.

Significant differences between temporaries and permanents were also found

amongst those employees that preferred permanent work (Fig. 5-4b). When highly

172

insecure, the voluntary temporaries had higher turnover intentions than permanents,

reacting the same way that involuntary temporaries did. When voluntary temporaries

felt secure though, they had similar turnover intentions to their equally secure

permanent counterparts. These findings highlight the important role played by

employee job status preferences. Given that volition links action to the individual

(Salancik, 1982), thereby increasing perceptions that the individual is responsible for

what happens, it is likely that voluntary temporaries accept the level of job security

offered by their job status. For them, a certain level of job insecurity is expected, and

since they believe they freely chose temporary work, they in turn accept this level of

job insecurity.

Such an interpretation is consistent with the arguments of the person-environment fit

literature (e.g., Edwards, 1996; Kristof, 1996) discussed in Chapter 3, that contends

that individuals seek out environments that are congruent with their needs. Thus it is

not unreasonable to conclude that temporaries that prefer temporary work seek out

such a job and once attained their needs are met, thereby reducing their inclination to

leave. Psychological contract theory (Rousseau & Greller, 1994) informs us that

employees form expectations as to how employers will reciprocate. Thus, voluntary

temporaries are not likely to expect their temporary employer will provide them with

extended job continuity.

This conclusion partially supports the view that since temporaries expect job

insecurity, high levels of job insecurity do not develop (Jacobson & Hartley, 1991;

Pearce, 1998; Sloboda, 1999). Current findings show that some temporaries that

prefer temporary work do develop high job insecurity however (Fig. 5-4b), and have

a high propensity to turnover. What the present data suggest is even if the

probability of job loss is high some voluntary temporaries find that probability of job

loss an acceptable risk, resulting in turnover intentions that are no more, or no less,

than that of their permanent co-workers.

Findings also indicated that job status and preference for permanent work moderated

relations between job insecurity and contextual performance. Significant moderator

effects were found for voluntary temporaries, such that lower contextual performance

was reported by those with high job insecurity. A similar reaction was found for

173

permanents that had a strong preference for permanent work. These findings are

important since little is known about how job insecurity affects contextual

performance, as discussed in Chapter 2.

As discretionary behaviour, contextual performance has no explicit implications for

job retention (Allen & Meyer, 1996). Thus employees can reduce or withdraw such

activities at will. If employees perceive their “permanent” jobs as insecure, this lack

of job security might be viewed as a violation of their psychological contract

(Greenhalgh, 1983a; De Witte & Näswall, 2003). As such, willingness to engage in

extra-role activities might reduce (Rousseau & McLean Parks, 1993). Current

findings suggest this is the case for the permanent employees that have a strong

preference for permanent work, adding support for the argument that employees

perform such extra-role behaviours out of a sense of gratitude (Organ, 1977; Organ

& Ryan, 1995).

Temporaries however, did not react as permanents did. Specifically, involuntary

temporaries did not significantly lessen their contextual performance (Fig. 5-3a).

One interpretation of this finding is that, as Nolan et al. (2000) suggests, in the hope

of gaining an offer of permanent work and in order to demonstrate their worthiness

to attain such a job, such temporaries maintain their level of contextual performance

activities even when job insecurity is high. Voluntary temporaries, in contrast,

reduced their contextual performance (Fig. 5-3b) in response to higher job insecurity.

Findings from the current study also showed that job status and preference for

permanent work moderated relations between job insecurity and continuance

commitment. The findings showed that the negative effects of job insecurity were

exacerbated for involuntary temporaries. When secure, involuntary temporaries and

permanents had similar continuance commitment. In contrast, when insecure,

involuntary temporaries tended to decrease their continuance commitment (Fig. 5-

2a). A likely explanation is that temporaries preferring permanent work are seeking

greater career stability to avoid the uncertainty associated with temporary

employment. Since uncertainty avoidance is positively associated with continuance

commitment (Clugston et al., 2000), it seems reasonable to infer that highly insecure

involuntary temporaries might develop high levels of continuance commitment.

174

Since the present findings suggest otherwise, perhaps knowing that they are likely to

leave their current job, as evidenced by their high turnover intentions discussed

earlier, there is little reason for these permanent-job-seeking temporaries to develop

an organisational attachment. Possibly such temporaries believe that the costs of

leaving their temporary job are outweighed by the “gains” provided by a permanent

job, something they greatly desire, so their attachment to their current temporary

organisation is consequently low.

Collectively these results draw attention to the importance of understanding the job

status preferences of temporaries, consistent with other studies (Ellingson et al.,

1998; Feldman et al., 1995; Krausz et al., 1995; Krausz, 2000) in explaining

systematic differences in job attitudes across job status groups. The present findings

add to these conclusions by taking into account job insecurity perceptions. The

current findings suggest that job status preferences can differentially explain how

temporaries react to their job future uncertainty.

Employability: how it influences employees’ reactions to job insecurity – Hypothesis 4

Hypothesis 4 predicted that the relationship between job insecurity and work

outcomes would be jointly moderated by job status and employability. Specifically,

when both employability and job insecurity are high, it was hypothesized that

temporaries would indicate higher psychological well-being, job satisfaction,

affective commitment, turnover intentions and intention to change job status

(partially supported) and lower continuance commitment (supported) and contextual

performance than permanent employees.

Employability and job status jointly moderated the relationship between job

insecurity and continuance commitment. The findings suggest that the negative

effects of job insecurity worsened for highly employable temporaries, decreasing

their continuance commitment, since when secure, highly employable temporaries

and permanents had similar levels of continuance commitment (Fig. 5-7a). A likely

explanation is that highly insecure temporaries do not evaluate the costs of leaving

175

their current job as very high, since for them there are many other job alternatives.

In Marler et al.’s (2002) terms, such temporaries might consider themselves as

“boundaryless”, viewing their temporary work as career steps as they move from one

organisation to the next.

Employability and job status also jointly moderated the relationship between job

insecurity and intentions to change job status. The findings suggest that

employability did not influence temporary workers’ overall propensity to change

their job status. Whether secure or not, and whether highly employable or not,

temporaries were more inclined to change their job status than permanents (Fig. 5-

8a). Although not hypothesized, the findings show that, when insecure, temporaries

with low employability had a higher propensity to change their job status compared

to those that were secure (Fig. 5-8b).

One interpretation of these findings is that temporaries with less employability might

be using temporary employment as an opportunity to acquire skills and experience

(Lenz, 1996; Von Hippel et al., 1997), before seeking permanent work (i.e., change

their job status). Alternately, temporaries with less employability are likely to fear

the increased likelihood of a prolonged period of unemployment between jobs. Since

permanent employment generally gives employees access to the protection of an

internal labour market, these temporaries have a strong desire to change job status to

obtain some protection from external labour markets. The highly employable, in

contrast, having a lesser need to add to their skills and work experience, and being

more confident in their ability to find alternate work consequently see no need to

change their job status. Such an explanation is in keeping with those who consider

temporary work as a new form of entrepreneurship where individuals market their

own human capital portfolio among various “buyers” or employers (Carnoy et al.,

1997).

Subjective job dependency: how it influences employees’ reactions to job insecurity – Hypothesis 5

Hypothesis 5 predicted that the relationship between job insecurity and work

outcomes would be jointly moderated by job status and subjective job dependency.

176

Specifically, when job dependency and job insecurity are high, it was hypothesized

that temporaries would indicate lower psychological well-being, job satisfaction,

affective commitment, continuance commitment and contextual performance; and

higher turnover intentions and intention to change job status than permanents. None

of the hypothesized relationships were found.

Whilst no significant three-way effects were observed, subjective job dependency did

impact how both job status groups reacted to job insecurity. Specifically, the highly

insecure, irrespective of job status, reduced their contextual performance when they

had little economic need to work. One explanation for such a reaction is that with

few economic repercussions in the event of job loss, even though a strong job threat

is reckoned, such workers feel under no obligation, or are sufficiently motivated to,

engage in contextual performance activities. More interesting though is the finding

that when job dependency is high, individual differences in job insecurity levels have

no significant influence on contextual behaviour. In other words, both temporaries

and permanents that have a strong economic need to work maintain their levels of

contextual performance even when they fear losing their jobs. Performing such

extra-role activities for them is unlikely to result from a sense of gratitude to their

organisation, since to them their job is under threat. They might however perform

such acts to impress their supervisors (Hui et al., 1999) in the expectation that such

behaviour might help them retain their jobs. Further research is warranted to

investigate whether engaging in contextual performance has such an instrumental

value to the highly insecure.

Organisational social support: how it influences employees’ reactions to job insecurity – Hypothesis 6

Hypothesis 6 predicted that the relationship between job insecurity and work

outcomes would be jointly moderated by job status and organisational social support.

Specifically, when organisation social support and job insecurity are high, it was

hypothesized that temporaries would indicate higher psychological well-being, job

satisfaction, affective commitment and contextual performance (marginally

177

supported) and lower continuance commitment and turnover intentions than

permanent employees.

Organisational social support and job status jointly moderated the relationship

between job insecurity and contextual performance. The findings suggest that the

negative effects of job insecurity were alleviated for temporaries perceiving high

social support from organisational members, such that their contextual performance

was marginally higher than that of their permanent counterparts (Fig. 5-13a). As

well, as job insecurity increased for temporaries, fewer contextual performance

activities were performed. Such findings though do not explain whether it is

temporaries or permanents who are adjusting their contextual performance. It is

argued below that temporaries adjust their contextual performance, rather than

permanents, in response to the presence of organisational social support.

As temporaries do not belong to the core group of employees within an organisation,

temporaries are argued to receive inferior social support from their supervisors and

peers (Rogers, 1995; Sverke et al., 2000). So, when temporaries do experience

positive treatment, such as supportive supervisors and peers, it is likely that such

behaviour is unexpected. According to decision affect theory (DAT) (Mellers,

Schwartz, Ho & Ritov, 1997), good outcomes, in this case supportive behaviour, feel

better when unexpected than when expected. For permanents, organisational social

support is but one of many inducements their organisation provides. For temporaries

though, high social support may be rare. Since temporaries have no reason to expect

a long-term relationship with their employer, any inducements they receive are likely

to be given great saliency (Coyle-Shapiro & Kessler, 2002). Therefore, the presence

of highly supportive co-workers is likely to influence temporaries more than it might

influence permanents, since it is unexpected. Thus, it is reasonable to infer that it is

temporary employees that increase their contextual performance, consistent with the

principle of reciprocity (Blau, 1964; Gouldner, 1960).

In summary, research shows that work-based social supports can buffer or moderate

job insecurity amongst permanent employees (Borg, & Elizur, 1992; Borg et al.,

2000; Kinnunen & Nätti, 1994). Current findings suggest that supportive supervisor

and work colleagues are also important for temporary employees. Managers can

178

play an important role in developing strong social support networks in the workplace

to assist employees coping with job insecurity. Research also shows that highly

insecure permanent employees with strong work-based support are less likely to

engage in noncompliant job behaviours (Lim, 1996). Current findings point toward

the conclusion that supportive supervisors and co-workers can encourage temporaries

experiencing high job insecurity to carry out extra-role activities. Encouraging

strong workplace social support for temporaries therefore may ease organisational

demands on the supervision of temporaries. As such, this is an important topic that

warrants further investigation.

Family social support: how it influences employees’ reactions to job insecurity – Hypothesis 7

Hypothesis 7 predicted that the relationship between job insecurity and work

outcomes would be jointly moderated by job status and family social support.

Specifically, when family social support and job insecurity are high, temporaries

were hypothesized to have higher psychological well-being, job satisfaction

(partially supported), affective commitment, contextual performance (partially

supported) and intention to change job status and lower continuance commitment and

turnover intentions than permanent employees.

Family social support and job status jointly moderated the relationship between job

insecurity and job satisfaction. When family social support and job insecurity were

high, temporaries had similar job satisfaction to permanents, contrary to prediction.

For temporaries, the presence or absence of family social support did not exacerbate

or mitigate the negative effects of job insecurity on job satisfaction levels. For

permanents though, as job insecurity increased, job satisfaction decreased (Fig. 5-

15), when either family social support was high or low.

Findings also indicated that job status and family social support moderated relations

between job insecurity and contextual performance. When family social support was

high, increased job insecurity lessened contextual performance activity, but only for

permanents. In contrast, when family social support was low, increased job

179

insecurity reduced contextual performance, but this time only for temporaries (Fig 5-

16).

Taken together these findings suggest that social support from family and friends can

exacerbate the effects of job insecurity for permanents, but not for temporaries. A

possible explanation for these findings concerns the content of the social support

provided. Beehr (1995) argues that talking with stressed people about unpleasant

matters in the workplace is not always perceived as supportive. Employees’

reactions to stressful conditions are contingent upon the content of the support

provided (Chen, Popvich & Kogan, 1999). Given that permanent employees

generally anticipate a longer organisational bond with their employer than

temporaries, it is plausible that their family and friends offer support by talking about

positive job-related topics, rather than dwelling on the negative aspects of job

uncertainty. Such topics may serve to reinforce what the job holder has to lose

should job loss eventuate; thus job satisfaction falls and less contextual performance

is undertaken.

Given the transient nature of temporary employment, it is likely that the family and

friends of temporaries are not conversant enough with the temporary’s workplace to

discuss the more positive aspects of their job situation. It also seems reasonable that

family and friends might be supportive by reminding the temporary that they may

soon be leaving their current employer. Such assertions though obviously require

empirical examination.

In review, present findings adds to the evidence on the negative impact job insecurity

has on work attitudes and behaviour. Reactions to job insecurity found in the current

study replicate previous research. Furthermore, the current findings also illustrate

the subjective nature of job insecurity. Some job insecurity literature treats job

insecurity as an objective phenomenon (e.g., Auer & Cazes, 2000; Schmidt &

Svorny, 1998). Moreover, temporary job status has been used as a de facto measure

of job insecurity. Findings from the current research support the view that

understanding job insecurity requires a psychological approach. Consistent with past

research, even though the sample in the current research faced identical job

environments (the same industry and job levels types) participants differed in their

180

extent of job insecurity (Davy et al., 1997; Fryer & McKenna, 1987; Mohr, 2000;

Van Vuuren et al., 1991a & 1991b).

The present study also contributes to our understanding of job insecurity effects by

examining its association with contextual performance behaviour. Evidence

presented in the current study suggests that employees engage in fewer contextual

performance behaviours when insecure, if they perceive they have high mobility

between temporary and permanent jobs or they are not so reliant on the financial

benefits of their job. Increased job insecurity reduced the contextual performance of

permanents and those temporaries that desired permanent work. However, the level

of job insecurity experienced did not influence the contextual performance of

temporaries who did not desire permanent work. As well, the negative effects of job

insecurity were offset by strong organisational social support, encouraging

temporaries to increase their extra-role behaviours.

Direct effects of job status on job insecurity perceptions

Hypothesis 2 predicted that temporary employees would have higher job insecurity

than permanent employees. Unexpectedly, temporaries and permanents had similar

job insecurity. As explained in Chapter 3, there is a view that job insecurity is

particularly high for temporary employees (e.g., Aronsson, 1999; Beard & Edwards,

1995; Dex et al., 2000). In contrast, Harris and Greising (1998) argue that having

multiple contracts with different organisations might be far safer than having a single

“contract” with one organisation, as do permanents. Alternatively, some researchers

(Jacobson & Hartley, 1991; Pearce, 1998; Sloboda, 1999) argue that job insecurity is

an expected feature of temporary work, thereby being less detrimental for temporary

workers.

Evidence from the current study does not support any of these views concerning

temporary employees’ reactions to job insecurity. The results of the current study

show that even though job insecurity was not significantly higher or lower for

temporaries, as compared to permanents, they were not immune to the negative

effects of job insecurity. Thus, the evidence suggests that temporaries are not as

181

unperturbed by job insecurity as some observers might claim (e.g., Bishop et al.,

2002; Pearce, 1998). Job insecurity might be an expected part of temporary work

(Jacobson & Hartley, 1991) but the data suggest that job insecurity is not an accepted

part of temporary work. Furthermore, even though job insecurity levels reported in

the present study were not significantly different for permanents and temporaries,

how each job group reacted to job insecurity did differ, as demonstrated by the

significant moderator results presented.

In interpreting the findings of this study, a number of limitations must be considered.

First, an important limitation in the current study concerns the low response rate:

36% for university one and 27.5% for university two. Since respondents self-

selected to participate, restriction of range in the measures may have occurred. For

example, it is possible that highly insecure employees did not volunteer to

participate. Given that a high level of psychological distress is associated with high

job insecurity (e.g., De Witte, 1999) mental fatigue might have reduced the response

rate. Such a restriction in range would thereby reduce the likelihood of finding the

various hypothesized relationships proposed in the model.

A second limitation concerns sample size. To increase sample size data from both

organisations were combined and measures compared. University two respondents

were found to have significantly higher affective and continuance commitment than

university one respondents. Self-selection bias at university two may have meant

that more organisationally committed employees were overrepresented in the sample.

Small sample size also meant that rather than analysing all moderators

simultaneously, moderators were tested in isolation. Had the sample size been larger

therefore, it is possible that different results may have been found. A final limitation

concerns the cross-sectional design of the study, which precludes drawing any causal

inferences from the findings.

Despite these limitations, the overall findings from the current study largely support

the proposed model (Fig. 2-1) providing needed corroboration of previous research

and adding to this work by controlling for demographic and dispositional

characteristics. The negative effects of job insecurity such as low job satisfaction

and affective commitment are repeatedly documented in the job insecurity literature

182

and the current findings do not dispel these effects (e.g., Ashford, et al., 1989; Van

Vuuren et al., 1991a). Despite temporaries and permanents indicating similar levels

of job insecurity, these findings suggest that even though temporaries might expect

their jobs to be short-lived, they are not unaffected by their jobs’ transitory nature.

Present findings also support the idea that the powerlessness dimension of job

insecurity be separated from the probability of job loss dimension. The current study

investigated three specific sources of powerlessness argued in Chapter 2 to be related

to job insecurity. Choice in job status, employability and job dependency all were

shown to have differential effects on the influence of job insecurity on the outcomes

measures. Such findings agree with the view held by many that a perceived lack of

control towards a job threat (real or imagined) is a core aspect of job insecurity

perceptions (e.g., Barling & Kelloway, 1996; Dekker & Schaufeli, 1995; Greenhalgh

& Rosenblatt, 1984; Jacobson, 1991).

By disengaging the measurement of job insecurity from separate elements of

powerlessness or control, the current study was able to examine some differential

capabilities that employees might have in lessening the seriousness of a potential job

loss. For example, the level of employability an employee perceived impacted on

how job insecurity affected their continuance commitment levels. Other elements of

powerlessness or control therefore may also provide differential effects when

considered as moderators of job insecurity.

Job insecurity as measured in the current study captured the employee’s perceived

probability of retaining their job for as long as they desired. To feel secure then, the

probability of job retention had to be equal to, or greater than, the desired time to

retain the job. Respondents were in effect comparing their expectations of resigning

with their expectations of the job remaining open for them. Subject to satisfactory

performance then, the job secure can feel in control of any turnover decisions they

may care to make. For the secure, they believe that if they do not want to leave the

organisation, they do not have to do so. The reasoning is the same for both

permanents and temporaries, though a temporary may have a shorter time line in

mind when considering whether to stay in a particular organisation. Job loss and

voluntary turnover decisions may not be entirely distinct events, since voluntary

183

turnover can happen when an employee anticipates future job loss and decides it is

preferable to leave sooner, rather than later, in a manner that the employer controls

(Manski & Straub, 2000). Viewed this way, job insecurity can be considered as an

assessment of the ‘gap’ between voluntary and involuntary turnover decisions.

Understanding what affects voluntary turnover decisions therefore might enable us to

better understand reactions to job insecurity.

Job embeddedness is a comparatively new construct developed to examine voluntary

turnover (Mitchell, Holtom, Lee, Sabynski & Erez, 2001). It focuses on the

accumulated, generally non-affective, reasons constraining people from leaving their

current employment. Thus, if employees’ expectations of a job situation are short-

term, then it is likely that such employees will expend little effort in entrenching

themselves within the organisation, minimizing opportunities to develop social

networks. Conversely, if employees expect to remain for a long time in the same

organisation then they are likely to make the some effort to establish themselves

within their organisation, seeking out social networks. Employees therefore to some

extent might control the level to which they enmesh themselves within their jobs and

organisations.

Job embeddedness is argued to impact on voluntary turnover decisions (Mitchell et

al., 2001). Job insecurity, when measured as a job loss probability, also concerns

voluntary turnover decisions since secure employees believe they can retain their

jobs for as long as they desire. Therefore, the level of an employee’s job

embeddedness might impact on their ability to cope with job insecurity. The next

Chapter provides a review of the job embeddedness literature to explore this issue.

Before doing so however, the next Chapter begins with a review of the literature

regarding the long term effects of job insecurity.

184

Chapter 7: Long term effects of job insecurity and job embeddedness

This Chapter begins with a discussion of what is known about the longitudinal

effects of job insecurity. Then the Chapter continues with a review of the theoretical

and empirical literature on job embeddedness. How the construct is conceptualised

is discussed first followed by measurement issues. Study two’s proposed research

model and hypotheses are then presented.

Long term effects of job insecurity

Several theoretical models describe how stressor-strain relationships unfold over

time (e.g., Frese & Zapf, 1988). Yet only a small number of studies have

investigated the long term effects of job insecurity using longitudinal designs (e.g.,

Probst, & Brubaker,2001; Dekker & Schaufeli, 1995; Heaney et al., 1994; Mak &

Mueller, 2001; Mauno, Leskinen, & Kinnunen, 2001). Most studies that investigate

the effects of job insecurity use cross-sectional designs, therefore not accounting for

initial levels of any outcome variables to be controlled for (Hellgren & Sverke,

2003), thereby restricting causal inferences to be drawn. One aim of study 2 is to

examine the temporal effects of job insecurity.

Study 2 investigates whether previous levels of job insecurity predict employee

reactions to job insecurity over time. Given that job insecurity acts as a chronic

stressor (Ferrie et al., 1998; Heaney et al., 1994), it is hypothesized that employees

with high job insecurity at Time 1 have a higher risk of worsened work attitudes at

Time 2 than employees with low job insecurity at Time 1 (Hypothesis 1). It is

further hypothesized that these associations cannot be explained by differences in

age, tenure, locus of control (internal and external), or negative affect (Hypothesis

1a).

185

Conceptualizing job embeddedness

Generally attributed to the work of Granovetter (1985) (Dacin, Ventresca & Beal,

1999; Uzzi, 1997), the modern notion of embeddedness was developed to explain the

contingent nature of economic activity between organisations. Embeddedness

arguments look towards understanding relational aspects of organisations. Rather

than inter-firm relationships being driven solely by self-interest, as the logic and

assumptions of neoclassical economic theory dictate, the informal social relations

and the mutual obligations inherent in inter-firm relations influence and guide the

behaviour of exchange partners (Granovetter, 1985). Exchange partners embedded

in a network of organisations therefore, forego the right to pursue their own interests

and interdependence, friendship and expectations of trust emerge in consequence

(Powell, 1990). Embeddedness recognises how incentives to cooperate (Provan,

1993), and the drive for repeated transactions and organisational interconnectedness

(Uzzi, 1996, 1997) constrain organisations from acting opportunistically (Dacin et

al., 1999). Embeddedness at the macro level therefore, concerns social networks

acting as constraints in how organisations behave towards each other.

At the individual level of analysis, job embeddedness though, focuses more narrowly

on why individuals stay, rather than leave, their organisations (Mitchell et al., 2001).

Specifically, job embeddedness is regarded as a key mediating construct between

specific on-the-job and off-the-job factors in employee retention. Job embeddedness

is described as ‘like a net or a web in which an individual can become stuck’ (p.

1104). It focuses on the accumulated, generally non-affective, reasons constraining

people from leaving their current employment. Job embeddedness is conceptualised

as having several dimensions - ‘links’, ‘fit’, and ‘sacrifice’ – related to the

individual’s organisation and to their community (Mitchell et al., 2001).

Mitchell and his colleagues (2001) explain that fit relates to the extent to which

employees’ jobs and their communities are similar to, or fit with, the other aspects in

their lives. So how compatible, in terms of personal values and career goals, the

employee is with their organisation and community is argued to influence how tied

the employee feels to their organisation. Empirical results that support such beliefs

derive from the person-organisation fit literature where congruence between

186

individual values and organisational values is known to significantly predict

organisational commitment, job satisfaction, and turnover intentions (Cable & Judge,

1996; Kristof, 1996).

The second dimension of job embeddedness is links. Links relates to the extent and

strength of formal and informal connections the individual has with their

organisation and community. Family members, work and non-work friends, and

interest groups are examples of such contacts. The more links that connect the

individual to their organisation and community, the more difficult it is socially,

psychologically, and financially for them to sever such ties by leaving their current

employment (Mitchell et al., 2001).

The sacrifice dimension of job embeddedness refers to the perceived cost of tangible

and intangible benefits forfeited if the employee resigns. It focuses on what

employees “give up” if they leave. For instance, such losses include friendships,

pension plans, or interesting projects. In sum, the higher the number of links, the

better the fit, and the greater the sacrifices, the more bound or enmeshed the

individual becomes to their organisation and community (Mitchell et al., 2001).

Implicit in Mitchell et al.’s (2001) argument is that employees are not passive

participants in the development of job embeddedness. Granted, some aspects of the

embeddedness process are predetermined by the organisation, rather than the

individual, to encourage employee retention. Recruitment, selection, and

socialization practices designed by the employer, for example, are tailored to ensure

successful ‘fit’ for new organisational members. Similarly, formal links within the

organisation most likely are established by job level, job type, and work group,

again, all arranged by the employer. Some sacrifices too, such as superannuation

plans and organisation-specific training, are established by the employer rather than

the employee. Even so, individuals can be active in the job embeddedness process.

To establish informal links with other organisational members requires employees to

seek and initiate social interaction, for example. Socially active employees generate

more friendship and companionship ties than less active ones. Individuals also make

efforts to fit into their organisational surroundings. Temporaries for instance, report

187

“dressing down” to wear unobtrusive and non-threatening clothes to fit into the

image required by their organisations (Rogers, 1995). Logically then, those workers

with a short-term view of their job situation are not likely to expend much effort in

embedding themselves within their organisation. With fewer informal links, these

workers would have less to ‘give up’ when they leave. On the other hand, if

individuals take a long term view of their employment situation then they are likely

to make the effort to embed themselves in their organisation.

Job embeddedness as a moderator of job insecurity

Whether an employee desires their current job to be a long-term or short-term

situation is likely to moderate any reactions they have to their perceived job

insecurity. Job insecurity, as measured in Study 1, captured employees’ probability

to retain their job for as long as they desire. Thus job security was posited to enable

employees to control any turnover decisions they may make, in effect voluntary

turnover decisions. From the voluntary turnover literature a key factor identified in

understanding employee retention is job embeddedness. Job embeddedness

represents the accumulated, generally non-affective, reasons that constrain

employees from leaving their current employment (Mitchell et al., 2001). Thus a

strongly embedded employee finds it more difficult to leave their employer than one

that is less embedded.

Job embeddedness is expected to help an employee’s ability to cope with job

insecurity. Given that job embeddedness increases job satisfaction and affective

commitment and reduces turnover intentions, it appears likely that embeddedness

and job insecurity might have counterbalancing effects of work outcomes.

Characteristics such as, work output and work experience, rather than positional

factors, such as seniority or importance of one’s job, act as psychological safeguards

that ease employee reactions to job threats (Van Vuuren et al., 1991b). The more

safeguards employees believe they possess, the more secure they feel about their

jobs. Inasmuch as output and work experience are controlled by the individual

worker, to develop such safeguards it is likely that some individuals might increase

their work experience and maximize endorsement of their output to others by

188

expanding their organisational links. Perhaps then, employees might increase their

embeddedness trusting that with greater organisational links, greater access to

organisational resources such as information and advice will follow, thereby

offsetting the adverse effects of job insecurity.

Such a view is consistent with the communication literature’s notion of network

centrality that holds that those in more central positions tend to be more satisfied,

more committed, and participate more in work-related activities (Freeman, 1979;

Mullen, Johnson & Salas, 1991). Another construct that complements such ideas is

perceived insider status (Stamper & Masterson, 2002). Drawing upon inducements

and contributions theory (March & Simon, 1958), perceived insider status is argued

to create differentiated perceptions that some employees are more valuable to their

organisation (insiders) than others (outsiders). Found to be unrelated to actual

inclusion, in terms of hours worked and tenure, perceived insider status is positively

related to perceived organisational support and positive discretionary behaviours

(Stamper & Masterson, 2002). Highly satisfied, committed embedded employees

with their superior access to organisational information and advice thus are expected

to be better equipped to face stressful job situations, such as job insecurity, and be

less frightened by them. It is therefore proposed that:

The adverse effects of job insecurity will be moderated by job embeddedness. Job

satisfaction, affective commitment, continuance commitment, and contextual

performance will be highest and turnover intentions lowest when embeddedness is

high and job insecurity low (Hypothesis 2a). Conversely, job satisfaction, affective

commitment, continuance commitment, and contextual performance will be lowest

and turnover intentions highest when embeddedness is low and job insecurity high

(Hypothesis 2b). The analytical model underlying Study 2 is shown below.

Fig. 7-1 Proposed research model - Study 2

Job embeddedness Job satisfaction Affective commitment Continuance commitment Contextual performance Turnover intentions

Job insecurity

189

In conclusion, in this Chapter the literature considering the long term effects of job

insecurity was reviewed. Little research has examined job insecurity perceptions

over time. An aim of study 2 is to address this issue. Study two also investigates the

role that job embeddedness plays in alleviating or exacerbating the adverse effects of

job insecurity. The hypotheses developed in this Chapter are tested in study two and

the methodology used is described in the next Chapter.

190

Chapter 8: Methodology – Study 2

This Chapter details the sampling procedures, methods and measures used to

examine the long term effects of job insecurity and the relationships between job

insecurity, job embeddedness, and a number of work outcomes as outlined in the

hypotheses proposed in the preceding Chapter.

Sampling strategy and procedure

As noted in Chapter 4, data for study one were collected from general (non-

academic) permanent and temporary employees at two Australian universities.

Recall that respondents of study one were invited to provide their contact details

along with their completed questionnaires so that they might be included in a follow-

up survey. Postcards advising participant’s contact details bore an identifying

number corresponding to the number imprinted on each survey in study one.

Approximately half of the participants in study one (n = 198) volunteered to provide

their contact details. To determine any demographic differences between those

employees that volunteered and those who did not, statistical comparisons were

undertaken. No differences were found. Table 8-1 shows these comparisons.

At organisation 1, study two permanents that volunteered their contact details were,

on average, three years older than non-volunteers (Ms = 41 vs. 38 yrs.). As well,

these permanents averaged five and a half years tenure, six months less than the

average non-volunteer. Volunteer temporaries, on average, were some 8 years older

than non-volunteers (Ms = 39 vs. 31 yrs.) and worked had 2 years more tenure than

the average non-volunteer temporary (Ms = 4 vs. 2 yrs.). Permanents that

volunteered from organisation 2 were, on average, four and a half years older (Ms =

41.5 vs. 37 yrs.), and had worked at their university for 3 months longer, than their

non-volunteer counterparts (Ms = 82 vs. 79 mths.). Just as at organisation 1,

volunteer temporaries were older than their non-volunteer equivalents. The

difference in ages though was less than at organisation 1, being three years on

average (Ms = 35.8 vs. 32.8 yrs.). Volunteer temporaries, on average, reported

191

working about one and a half years less in organisation 2 than their non-volunteer

counterparts (Ms = 24 vs. 44 mths.).

Table 8-1 Demographic characteristics comparisons of volunteer and non-volunteer participants for Study 2

Organisation 1 Organisation 2

Contact details provided

Contact details not provided

Contact details provided

Contact details not provided

On-going employees 57 60 74 75

Temporaries 29 31 37 27

F value df Sig. level (2-sided)

On-going employee X age (1) 97.329 97 .472

On-going employee X age (2) 116.832 116 .461

Temporary employee X age (1) 38.998 39 .470

Temporary employee X age (2) 57.850 59 .518

On-going employee X gender (1) .038 1 .844

On-going employee X gender (2) .987 1 .320

Temporary employee X gender (1) 1.374 1 .241

Temporary employee X gender (2) .058 1 .809

On-going employee X tenure (1) 70.397 71 .498

On-going employee X tenure (2) 90.797 94 .574

Temporary employee X tenure (1) 27.325 29 .554

Temporary employee X tenure (2) 37.351 36 .407

Temporary employee X tenure as temp. (1) 18.254 19 .506 Temporary employee X tenure as temp. (2) 34.003 32 .371 On-going employee X educat. level (1) 7.147 7 .414

On-going employee X educat. level (2) 8.475 7 .293

Temporary employee X educat. level (1) 5.747 7 .570

Temporary employee X educat. level (2) 7.264 7 .402

NOTE: Organisation number is in brackets ().

Contact postcards invited participants to provide any of the following data: name,

address (either work or home), telephone number (home, work, or mobile), and e-

mail address (work or private). Each volunteer was contacted by e-mail if possible.

If an e-mail address was not supplied, contact was made by telephone. If no e-mail

address or telephone number was provided, the volunteer was contacted by mail.

192

Only seven participants from study one were unable to be contacted as they had

moved residence, changed telephone numbers, or their e-mail address was no longer

current. Four study one respondents were sent mail invitations and 22 respondents

were contacted by telephone. The remainder of the invitations to participate in study

two were sent via e-mail (Appendix 3) with the questionnaire (Appendix 4) attached.

The explanatory e-mail or letter emphasised voluntary participation, and

confidentiality. Each questionnaire included the addressee’s unique identifying

number, allocated in study one. Completed surveys were returned by e-mail, internal

mail delivery, or mailed directly to the researcher. One month later, a reminder e-

mail (Appendix 5) was forwarded to employees who had not responded.

Participants

Of the 77 questionnaires distributed at University One, 50 questionnaires were

returned yielding a response rate of approximately 65 per cent. Ninety-two per cent

of respondents were female. Respondent ages ranged from 22 to 60 years, with an

average of 45 years 5 months. The average participant at University One reported a

job tenure of 6 years 10 months.

Of the 120 questionnaires distributed at University Two completed questionnaires

were received from 70 employees, representing a 60 per cent response rate. Eight

per cent of the respondents were male. The average age of participants was 43 years

and 8 months (range = 22 to 61 years). Average job tenure for the participants was 7

years and 5 months.

Instrument

A survey was administered to assess the variables outlined in the proposed research

model in Chapter 7. The survey consisted of 75 items. Instructions to assist

participants to complete the instrument were provided periodically throughout the

survey, where response categories options changed. Items were organised according

to the number and type of response categories. For instance, some responses

required circling a number, whereas others needed a cross (X) on a probability line.

193

As in study one, individual scale items from each of the various scales were not

necessarily presented alongside each other. Demographic characteristic items were

included in the middle section of the questionnaire. A copy of the survey appears in

Appendix Four.

Measures Demographic characteristics of the respondents as well as each of the variables of

interest described below were measured in the questionnaire. Sample items from the

scales used are provided. Reverse scored items are indicated with an “(R)”.

Wherever possible, measures used in study one, save one, were used in the current

study. Given that no significant effects were found for psychological well-being in

study one, this variable was not assessed in this study.

Job status: Job status was operationalised on two dimensions. First, participants

recorded whether their employment was on an on-going or temporary basis (hired by

the organisation) or on a temporary basis hired through an agency. Second,

respondents indicated whether they worked full-time or part-time hours.

Participant demographics: Single-item measures were used to assess participants’

age, gender, and organisational tenure, and the working status of their spouse/partner,

if applicable.

Perceived job insecurity: Job insecurity perceptions relates to individual beliefs

about the likelihood of job loss, an approach consistent with previous research (e.g.,

De Witte, 1999; Dekker & Schaufeli, 1995; Heaney et al., 1994; Jacobson, 1991;

Lim, 1996). The scale contains 5 items. For one item participants indicate on a scale

of 0-100% the probability of retaining their job with their current employer for as

long as they desire (reverse-coded). As in study one, a 7-point scale was used for the

remaining items, which is anchored from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).

Example items are:

“I am confident that this organisation will continue to need my skills and job

knowledge” and “My job performance history will protect me from losing my job in

194

this organisation”. All items are reverse coded. Prior to analyses, scale items were

standardized to equalize the differing means and variances caused by the different

distances across response formats. Then, a constant equivalent to the minimum z

score of each organisation’s sample (i.e., 1.41 for Organisation 1 and 1.17 for

Organisation 2) was added to each composite score to calculate the scale total. By

adding these constants, each scale’s total score became positive. High scores on the

scale thereby indicate higher perceived job insecurity. A Cronbach alpha of 0.84 was

obtained for this scale.

Dependent variables

Job satisfaction: Job satisfaction concerns positive affective reactions to a job (Price,

1997). As in study one, four items from Quinn and Staines’ (1979) facet-free

measure were used. Response scales for individual items vary. For instance, for the

question “If a friend of yours told you that they were interested in working in a job

like yours, what would your tell them?”; participants choose from: “Strongly

recommend it”; “Have doubts about recommending it”; or “Advise them against it”.

Another item asks: “All in all, how satisfied would you say you are with your job”

To score that item a 4-point scale, ranging from 1 (not very satisfied) to 4 (very

satisfied) was used. As the response formats varied in length, responses to the items

were standardized to equalize the differing means and variances. The minimum z

score of each organisation’s sample (2.74 for Organisation 1 and 2.18 for

Organisation 2) was added to each composite score to ensure that the scale totals

were positive. Higher scores thus indicate greater job satisfaction. A Cronbach

alpha of 0.87 was obtained for the scale.

Organisational commitment: Two components of organisational commitment were

measured, namely affective commitment and continuance commitment. Affective

commitment concerns an individual’s identification with, involvement in, and

emotional attachment to their organisation. Continuance commitment relates to

commitment based on an individual’s recognition of the costs associated with leaving

their organisation. Scales used were developed by Allen and Meyer (1990) and

modified by Culpepper (2000), as detailed in Chapter 4. The affective commitment

scale consisted of 7 items, whereas the continuance commitment scale had 6 items.

195

Example items are: “I do not feel like ‘part of the family’ at this organisation” (R),

and “Too much in my life would be disrupted if I wanted to leave this organisation

now.” Participants indicated their extent of commitment on a 7-point scale, ranging

from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Higher scores on the scales reflect

higher commitment levels. Cronbach alphas obtained were 0.83 for affective

commitment and 0.81 for continuance commitment.

Contextual performance: Contextual performance concerns activities that enhance

the capacity of an organisation’s social network to augment the psychological

climate of an organisation (Motowidlo, Borman, & Schmit, 1997) 1997). Such

activities include: informal helping and cooperating with others, volunteering to

carry out tasks not formally part of the job, enacting company rules even when

personally inconvenient, and gestures that promote and defend an organisation’s

good will (Motowidlo & Van Scotter, !994; Motowidlo et al. 1997; Organ & Paine,

1999). As reported in Chapter 4 items chosen to measure contextual performance

were drawn from a mixture of previously validated scales to assess helping

behaviour, organisational loyalty, and conscientiousness.

Altogether the contextual performance measure consisted of 14 items. Example

items are: “I willingly get involved to solve work-related problems” (Van Dyne &

LePine, 1998 - helping behaviour); “When employees criticize this organisation, I do

not defend it”; (Van Dyne et al., 1994 - loyalty – reverse scored); and “Regardless of

the circumstance, I always produce the highest quality work” (Van Dyne et al., 1994

- conscientiousness). Anchors on the 7-point scale ranged from 1 (strongly disagree)

to 7 (strongly agree). Scores for each item were summed together, then averaged, to

provide the measure for contextual performance. A coefficient alpha of 0.83 was

obtained for this combined measure.

Turnover intentions: Six items were used to assess respondents’ turnover intentions

during the next three months. As in study 1, questions were adapted from Hom et

al.’s (1984) test of Mobley’s (1977) Model of Employee Turnover. The 5-point

Likert scale ranged from 1 (rarely or never) to 5 (very often). Example items are:

“Over the past month, how often have you seriously thought about making a real

196

effort to enter a different occupation?” and “How often have you seriously thought

about resigning from your job during the past month?” Higher scores on the scale

indicate higher turnover intentions. A Cronbach alpha of 0.91 was obtained for this

measure.

Intention to change job status: A single item was used to assess the likelihood that

respondents would change their job status. The item was: “How often have you

seriously thought about changing from a permanent to casual work (or from causal to

permanent work)?” Anchors for the 5-point scale were from 1 (rarely or never) to 5

(very often).

Moderator variables

Employability: This variable reflects an individual’s beliefs as to the ease with

which they can find comparable employment should their current job be terminated

(Kuhnert & Vance, 1992; Vance & Kuhnert, 1988; Roskies et al., 1993).

Participants nominated the likelihood (on a scale of 0-100%) of finding a comparable

job within 1 month of active job-seeking. In addition, two items from the ‘value of

work alternatives’ scale (Rusbult & Farrell, 1983) together with three items

developed for Study 1 assessed employability perceptions. Those three items are: “I

have skills that would enable me to find employment outside the tertiary education

industry”; “I am confident that my job search skills (e.g., resume writing, job

interview techniques) are sufficient to help me in finding another job in the event of

job loss”; and “Despite my work experience there are few job opportunities for me in

the job market” (R). A 7-point scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7

(strongly agree) was used.

As detailed in Chapter 4, to equalize the differing means and variances caused by the

different response formats, responses to the scale were standardized. A constant

corresponding to the minimum z score of each organisation’s sample (i.e., 2.25 for

Organisation 1 and 1.94 for Organisation 2) was added to each composite score to

calculate the employability scale total. Adding the constant ensures that the scale’s

total score is positive. Higher scores on the scale reflect stronger beliefs that

197

alternate employment opportunities are available. An internal reliability coefficient

of 0.76 was obtained for this scale.

Job embeddedness: Job embeddedness concerns the accumulated, generally non-

affective, reasons that constrain individuals from leaving their current employment.

Embeddedness is conceptualised as having both organisational and community

components of three dimensions, fit, links and sacrifice. Study two assesses only the

organisational aspect of embeddedness, since the sample resided in a large

metropolitan city and changing jobs would not necessarily lead to relocation to

another community. Mitchell and his colleagues (2001) developed the scales used to

assess embeddedness in this study.

Organisational fit involves the employee’s compatibility or comfort level with their

organisation. This dimension was measured with a 6-item scale. A typical item is:

“I feel like I am a good match for this organisation.” An internal consistency

reliability of .76 was obtained for this scale.

Organisation-related sacrifice concerns the perceived costs of leaving an

organisation. For example, leaving an organisation means giving up tangible

benefits such as, salary, and intangible benefits, such as interesting work. As one

item from the 10-item scale was inapplicable to the organisations sampled, directed

at health-care benefits, only the remaining nine items from the scale were used. An

example item is: “My promotional opportunities are excellent here.” A Cronbach

alpha of 0.79 was obtained for this scale. Anchors for these two dimensions of

embeddedness ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).

Links measures the extent to which employees have formal or informal connections

with other people or activities in their organisation. Seven items were used to assess

organisational links. Respondents were asked to provide, for example, the number of

work teams and work committees they participated in. An internal reliability score

of 0.83 for this scale was obtained.

198

Control variables

A number of control variables were included in the survey in order to rule out

alternative explanations for variation in job insecurity and the outcome variables.

The following variables were measured for use as control variables: age, tenure,

locus of control, and negative affectivity. Data assessing locus of control and

negative affect were gathered at Time 1. Details of the scales used are provided in

Chapter 4.

Methods of analysis

Before proceeding with any analyses, the data were investigated for the accuracy of

data entry and variable frequency distributions. Data were also screened to detect

any univariate outliers, using box-plots; and multivariate outliers, by calculating

Mahalanobis’ distances. Two cases with extreme Mahalanobis’ distances (i.e.,

greater than χ2 (10) = 29.588, p < .001) were identified and excluded from the data

set.

As the sample was drawn from two universities, the data sets were compared to

determine respondent differences at each institution. Since only part of the study one

sample volunteered to participate in study two, statistical comparisons were

conducted to detect possible response biases. Self-selection and attrition over the

course of the research may have meant that study two participants were different

from those that participated in study one but did not volunteer for study two.

Independent samples t-tests were performed to compare Time 1 levels of the study

variables for each of these groups. The results are presented in Table 8-2.

No significant differences were found between the respondent groups in terms of

their loci of control or negative affect. As well, these respondents did not differ in

their levels of job satisfaction, job insecurity or employability. The analyses

determined though, that study 2 participants were significantly older, by 5.5 years;

more committed (both affective and continuance); reported more contextual

performance, and had lower turnover intentions than those respondents only

199

participating in study two. These comparisons therefore suggest that study two

participants were more loyal and organisationally dedicated than respondents in

study one.

Table 8-2 Descriptive statistics and t-tests comparing continuous variables between Study 1 respondents (non-volunteers) and Study 2 respondents

Study

No. N Mean Std.

Deviationt df Sig.

1. Age One 181 37.54 11.41 5.839 117 .001 Two 118 43.08 10.31 2. Tenure One 186 5.19 4.94 1.485 119 .140 Two 120 6.06 6.37 3. Job One 190 1.42 .82 .333 117 .740 insecurity Two 118 1.40 .78 4. Employability One 190 2.28 .70 1.006 119 .317 Two 120 2.22 .64 5. Job One 189 2.72 .78 1.214 117 .227 satisfaction Two 118 2.79 .66 6. Affective One 190 4.30 1.22 4.622 118 .001 commitment Two 119 4.78 1.12 7. Continuance One 190 4.34 1.29 3.090 119 .002 commitment Two 120 4.70 1.28 8. Contextual One 192 5.57 .70 4.012 119 .001 performance Two 120 5.80 .63 9. Turnover One 188 2.12 1.19 4.806 117 .001 intentions Two 118 1.73 .89 10. External One 192 3.52 1.07 1.217 119 .226 locus of control Two 120 3.64 1.06 11. Internal One 192 5.14 .69 .842 119 .402 locus of control Two 120 5.08 .84 22. Negative One 187 3.71 .77 .276 117 .783 affectivity Two 118 3.70 .72

To conclude, this Chapter has outlined the methodology used in study two. The next

Chapter presents the results of that study.

200

Chapter 9: Results – Study 2

The results of study two are described in this Chapter. The Chapter begins with the

descriptive statistics of the data. Results of the tests of the hypotheses proposed in

Chapter 7 complete the remainder of the chapter.

Descriptive statistics

Constructs and measures – job embeddedness The reliability and factor structure of job embeddedness was examined. An

exploratory factor analysis of the items was undertaken to assess whether the items

within each dimension (fit, sacrifice, and links) were reasonably correlated with each

other and yet distinct from the other dimensions. Structural validity of the scale was

examined by means of factor analysis using a maximum likelihood extraction

method with a direct oblimin rotation. Six factors with eigenvalues greater than 1.00

were extracted initially, explaining 65% of the variance. This six-factor solution,

however, was not easily interpretable since Mitchell and colleagues (2001)

conceptualised only three dimensions of job embeddedness. The pattern matrix for

the six factor loadings is shown in Table 9-1.

A number of items were dropped from the job embeddedness subscales, some on

conceptual grounds and others for statistical reasons (e.g., low or multiple loadings).

Generally, items with loadings of .4 and above that loaded primarily with other items

of the same subscale were retained. Each subscale is now discussed in more detail.

For theoretical reasons the first three items of the fit subscale were abandoned.

These items (“I like the members of my work group”; “My co-workers are similar to

me”; and “My job utilizes my skills and talents well”) loaded on factor 5 and were

considered to concern fit with the job or work group, rather than the organisation.

The other three items (“I feel like I am good match for this organisation”; “I fit with

this organisation’s culture”: and “I like the authority and responsibility I have in this

organisation”) were retained since, in contrast, those items concern fit with the

201

Table 9-1 Exploratory factor analytic results for job embeddedness scale with a six-factor solution

Factor Item label 1 2 3 4 5 6Fit04 .918 .233 Fit05 .569 .109 .190 .111 Tenure in organ. .957 -.125 .197Tenure in industry .152 .944 Tenure in job -.168 .567 -.114Co-work depend. .868 .119 Co-wor interaction .820 .101Sacrifice07 .142 .721 .164Sacrifice06 .119 .703 -.237Sacrifice02 -.189 -.219 .654 .112 Sacrifice05 .231 .488 .139Sacrifice03 -.140 .841 .113Fit01 .110 .536 Fit06 .244 .529 Fit03 .161 .141 .176 .206 .523 Sacrifice08 -.208 .291 .421 .179Sacrifice01 .130 .195 .404 Fit02 -.194 .237 .343 No. work teams .437Sacrifice04 .184 -.166 .161 .276 .401No. wk committ’es .127 .355Sacrifice09 .302 -.207 .320Eigenvalue 5.50 2.65 2.07 1.63 1.30 1.18

Extraction Method: Maximum Likelihood. Rotation Method: Oblimin with Kaiser Normalization. Rotation converged in 14 iterations. Loadings > .30 are in boldface.

organisation which is more congruent with the purpose of the study. A coefficient

alpha reliability of 0.76 was obtained for the 3-item fit subscale used in this study.

Items from the links subscale loaded on three factors (2, 3 & 6 in Table 9-1). Tenure

in the organisation, current position, and tertiary education industry were highly

correlated. Therefore, since in factor analysis only shared variance is analysed, and

because of data redundancy, the latter two measures of tenure (current position and

industry) were dropped. When a second factor analysis was undertaken on the

revised links subscale, organisational tenure however did not load with the other

links items. Furthermore, number of work teams and work committees loaded with

conceptually unrelated items from the sacrifice subscale. Thus, only two items

(“How many co-workers do you interact with regularly?” and “How many co-

202

workers are highly dependent on you?”) were retained providing a subscale

coefficient alpha reliability of 0.83.

Of the original 9 items of the sacrifice subscale, only four items (loading on Factor 4

in Table 9-1) were retained. Sacrifice items 1, 3 and 8 (“I have a lot of freedom on

this job to decide how to pursue my goals”; “I feel that people at work respect me a

great deal”; “My promotional opportunities are excellent here”) loaded with the fit

subscale items (Factor 5). Sacrifice item 9 (“The superannuation benefits here are

excellent” cross-loaded on Factor 4 and Factor 6. Sacrifice item 4 (“I would sacrifice

a lot if I left this job”) loaded with the links items concerning work teams and work

committees (Factor 6). Theoretical examination of the remaining four items showed

them to all concern the level of financial benefits sacrificed should the employee

leave their organisation. The retained items are: “The perks on this job are

outstanding”; “The prospects for continuing employment with this company are

excellent”; “I am well compensated for my level of performance”; and “The benefits

are good on this job.” The coefficient alpha reliability for the sacrifice subscale was

0.79.

Finally, a second maximum likelihood analysis was run on the revised scale of ten

items. As before, the number of factors was not specified. This second analysis

yielded a three factor solution of eigenvalues greater than 1.00 and explained 63% of

the variance. The pattern matrix of the factor loadings is shown in Table 9-2.

Table 9-2 shows that the retained items loaded on three factors – links, sacrifice, and

fit – as conceptualised by Mitchell et al. (2001). As noted earlier, organisational

tenure (Lin05) with a low factor loading (.278) was excluded from the job

embeddedness measure. All analyses carried out in study two used the subscale

items shown on the next page.

203

Table 9-2 Exploratory factor analytic results for job embeddedness scale with a three-factor solution.

Factor 1 2 3 How many co-workers do you interact with regularly? - Lin01 1.000 How many co-workers are highly dependent on you? - Lin02 .659 The benefits are good on this job - Sacrifice07 .792 The perks on this job are outstanding - Sacrifice02 .709 The prospects for continuing employment with this company are excellent - Sacrifice05 .621

I am well compensated for my level of performance - Sacrfe06 .611 I feel like I am a good match for this organisation - Fit04 -.143 .255 -.699I fit with this organisation’s culture - Fit05 .280 -.646I like the authority and responsibility I have in this organisation - Fit06 .128 .191 -.445

How long have you worked for this company? – Lin05 -.111 -.278Eigenvalue 3.33 1.75 1.24

Extraction Method: Maximum Likelihood. Rotation Method: Oblimin with Kaiser Normalization. Rotation converged in 7 iterations. Loadings > .30 are in boldface.

Table 9-3 shows the means, standard deviations, zero-order intercorrelations, and

internal consistency reliabilities (Cronbach, 1951) for the various measures used in

study two. The patterns of correlation between job insecurity and the Time 2

outcomes are similar to the cross-sectional relationships in study one (Table 5-3). As

anticipated, for instance, bivariate correlations between job insecurity and each of the

outcomes were negative and statistically significant (job satisfaction, r = -.30, p <

.01: affective commitment, r = -.24, p < .01; contextual performance, r = -.20, p <

.05), although moderate in magnitude. Likewise, as expected, turnover intentions (r

= .19, p < .05) were positively related with job insecurity perceptions. Neither tenure

(r = -.09) nor continuance commitment (r = .11) were statistically significant though.

As for the correlations between the job embeddedness subscales and the work

outcome variables, generally the relationships were similar to those reported by

Mitchell et al. (2001). Fit to the organisation for instance, was positively and

significantly associated with job satisfaction (r = .55, p < .01) and affective

commitment (r = .73, p < .01). The fit subscale also related negatively to turnover

intentions (r = -.44, p < .01). Mitchell et al. (2001) also assessed ‘job alternatives’,

measuring the probability of finding alternate employment, conceptually similar to

this study’s employability measure. Whereas Mitchell et al. (2001) show a negative

204

Table 9-3 Descriptive statistics, intercorrelations, and reliability estimates for study variables.

Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 n = 115 115 115 115 114 115 115 115 115 114 114 115

Mean 44.58 7.16 1.32 1.89 2.53 5.08 4.37 0.61 4.53 4.50 5.70 1.94 SD 10.23 6.28 0.77 .67 .84 1.08 1.25 0.42 1.24 1.29 0.61 1.01

1. Age

(-)

2. Tenure

.40** (-)

3. Job insecurity

.19* -.09 (.84)

4. Employability

-.07 -.02 -.44** (.76)

5. Job satisfaction

.22* .22* -.30** .19* (.87)

6. Organl fit .12 .20* -.33** .19* .55** (.76)

7. Organl sacrifice -.08 .01 -.53** .14 .29** .51** (.79)

8. Organl links .34** .64** .02 -.02 .19* .15 -.04 (.83)

9. Affective commitment

.24** .37** -.24** .11 .56** .73** .38** .24** (.83)

10. Continuance commitment

.04 .16 .11 -.55* -.03 .12 .17 .15 .29** (.81)

11. Contextual performance

.27** .07 -.20* .16 .42** .64** .23* .24** .59** .17 (.83)

12. Turnover intentions

-.29** .16** .19* .06 -.57** -.44** -.26** -.16 -.48** -.13 -.30** (.91)

Alpha reliability estimates are in parentheses on the diagonal. * p < .05, ** p < .01

205

significant correlation between the two scales (r = -.17, p < .01), Table 9-3 shows a

weak positive association ((r = .19, p < .05).

Just as organisational links were not associated with Mitchell et al.’s ‘job

alternatives’ (r = -.11, ns) neither was this study’s measure of employability (r = -

.02, ns). Comparable correlations to those reported by Mitchell et al. were also

found between the links subscale and affective commitment, continuance

commitment and turnover intentions.

The correlation between organisation-related sacrifice and job satisfaction reported

by Mitchell et al. (r = .55, p < .01) is much stronger than that shown in the current

study (r = .29, p < .01). As well, the subscale’s association with turnover intentions

in this study (r = -.26, p < .01) is much weaker than Mitchell et al.’s (r = -.51, p <

.01). In contrast, affective commitment (r = .38, p < .01) was found to be

significantly associated with the sacrifice subscale in this study, whereas Mitchell et

al. reports no such relationship (r = .11, ns).

Tests of hypotheses

Longitudinal analyses - Hypothesis 1 As noted previously, longitudinal studies concerning job insecurity are quite rare

(Mauno et al, 2001). A primary aim of study two therefore was to investigate the

temporal effects of job insecurity. If job insecurity at Time 1 was found to be related

to Time 2 work outcomes, while controlling for baseline levels of these outcomes at

Time 1, then such findings would support the argument that job insecurity acts as a

chronic job stressor (Borg et al., 2000; Ferrie et al., 1998; Heaney et al., 1994).

First, a comparison of job insecurity levels at Time 1 and Time 2 found no

significant differences (t = 1.58, NS), suggesting that job insecurity was stable over

time. Next, to determine whether job insecurity was longitudinally related to job

satisfaction, affective and continuance commitments, contextual performance, and

turnover intentions, five hierarchical regression analyses were undertaken with the

Time 2 measures of these outcomes as dependent variables.

206

Job insecurity at Time 1 was entered in the first step in order to estimate the amount

of variance in the dependent variables accounted for by job insecurity alone. The

control variables (age, internal locus of control, and external locus of control) were

entered in Step 2. In Step 3 the Time 1 measure of the respective outcome was

entered as a covariate. The regression analyses, shown in Table 9-4, enable

comparison of the relative impact of job insecurity, the controls, and prior levels of

job attitudes on the outcome variables.

As shown in Table 9-4, the Time 2 measure of continuance commitment was

predicted in Step 1 by job insecurity (β = .28, p < .01), explaining 6.7% variance (F

(1, 112) = 9.15, p < .01. In Step 2 the controls failed to reach significance and the

effect of job insecurity remained (β = .29, p < .01). In Step 3, when the Time 1

measure of continuance commitment was added to the regression equation, the effect

of job insecurity remained significant (β = .22, p < .05) although it decreased slightly

in magnitude. The covariate was also significant (β = .54, p < .001) and the amount

of explained variance increased to 31.7% (adjusted) in the full model (∆ R2 = 0.23, F

(1, 108) = 41.91, p < .001).

The Time 2 measure of job satisfaction was not predicted by Time 1 job insecurity.

When the controls were entered in Step 2, only age emerged as a significant

predictor, and the amount of variance explained increased by 6.6% (F (3, 107) =

3.10, p < .01). When the Time 1 measure of job satisfaction was entered in Step 3,

there was a significant increase in explained variance (∆ R2 = 0.20, F (1, 106) =

30.26, p < .001) with the full model accounting for 26.6% (adjusted) of variance in

job satisfaction.

207

Table 9-4 Longitudinal hierarchical regression results for Time 2 outcome variables. Job satisfaction

N = 111 Affective commitment

N = 113 Continuance commitment

N = 113 Contextual performance

N = 113 Turnover intention

N = 113 Time 1 predictor

Step 1: Job insecurity -.15 -.12 .01 -.06 .02 .10 .28** .29** .22* -.17 -.18 -.10 .01 .05 .01

Step 2: Age .26** .23** .26** .17* -.01 -.05 .29** .18* -.29** -.25**

Internal LOC .13 .01 .26* .07 .04 .09 .08 -.10 .01 .02

External LOC .01 .11 .04 .16* .14 .01 -.01 .12 -.04 -.08

Step 3: Covariate1 .51*** .64*** .54*** .63*** .22*

R2 (adjusted) .01 .07* .27*** .01 .08** .42*** .07** .09 .32*** .02 .08* .40*** .01 .05* .08*

∆ R2 .01 .06* .20*** .01 .07** .34*** .07** .02 .23*** .02 .06* .32*** .01 .04* .03*

a In each equation, the Time 1 measure of the Time 2 outcome was used as the covariate. Standardized betas are reported. * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p< .001.

208

Table 9-4 also shows that Time 2 affective commitment was not predicted by Time 1

job insecurity. When the controls were accounted for, age (β = .17, p < .05) and

external locus of control (β = .16, p < .05) emerged as significant predictors, and the

amount of variance explained increased by 8.5% (F (3, 109) = 4.70, p < .01). When

the Time 1 measure of affective commitment was entered in Step 3, there was a

significant increase in explained variance (∆ R2 = 0.32, F (1, 108) = 62.79, p < .001)

with the full model accounting for 41.6% (adjusted) of variance in affective

commitment.

The results for contextual performance followed a similar pattern. Time 1 job

insecurity failed to reach significance in the prediction of Time 2 contextual

performance. Again, of the controls only age emerged as a significant predictor (β =

.29, p < .01). When Time 1 levels of contextual performance were controlled in Step

3, both age (β = .18, p < .05) and the covariate (β = .63, p < .001) emerged as

significant predictors of Time 2 contextual performance (∆ R2 = 0.32, F (1, 108) =

59.11, p < .001), explaining 40.0% (adjusted) of the variance in contextual

performance.

Finally, for the prediction of turnover intentions, the significant variables were age (β

= -.25, p < .01; ∆ R2 = 0.08, F (3, 109) = 3.15, p < .05) and Time 1 turnover

intentions (β = .22, p < .05; ∆ R2 = 0.04, F (1, 108) = 5.00, p < .05). The overall

model though accounted for only 8.0% (adjusted) of variance in turnover intentions.

Table 9-5 shows the intercorrelations between job insecurity and the outcome

variables at Time 1 and Time 2. High correlations, for example between job

satisfaction at Time 1 and Time 2 (r = .61, p < .01) and for job insecurity (r = .71, p

< .01), suggest that both the independent and dependent variables were stable over

time in the sample.

209

Table 9-5 Intercorrelations for study one and study two variables

Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 n = 196 118 193 116 196 118 195 116 195 116 196 118

1. Job insecurity T 1

1

2. Job insecurity T 2

.41** 1

3. Job satisfaction T 1

-.41** -.30** 1

4. Job satisfaction T 2

-.14 -.30** .49** 1

5. Affective commitment T 1

-.36** -.27** .54** .35** 1

6. Affective commitment T 2

-.03 -.24** .39** .55** .61** 1

7. Continuance commitment T 1

.11 .17 -.09 .01 ..03 .14 1

8. Continuance commitment T 2

.23* .11 -.14 -.02 -.02 .29** .56** 1

9. Contextual performance T 1

-.30** -.14 .42** .24** .64** .42** .06 .06 1

10. Contextual performance T 2

-.13 -.20* .22* .41** .47** .59** .05 .17 .62** 1

11. Turnover intentions T 1

.36** .19* -.65** -.40** -.47** -.37** -.12 .02 -.44** -.29** 1

12. Turnover intentions T 2

.01 .20* -.18 -.55** -.19* -.47** -.15 -.14 -.11 -.30** .25** 1

* p < .05, ** p < .01

210

In summary, the data showed that over time the probability of job loss did not change

significantly for respondents. Reactions to job insecurity also were stable, as

evidenced by the pattern of correlations. Furthermore, the most robust predictors

across the array of outcomes analyzed were prior levels of those outcomes. Time 2

job satisfaction, affective commitment, contextual performance, and turnover

intentions appear to be best predicted by Time 1 levels of these outcomes rather than

prior job insecurity levels. Job insecurity at Time 1 did not account for any

additional variability in these outcomes. However, as shown in Table 9-4, although

continuance commitment at Time 1 significantly explained continuance commitment

at Time 2 (β = .54, p < .001), job insecurity at Time 1 also significantly predicted

continuance commitment at Time 2 (β = .22, p < .05).

Longitudinal analyses – Predictors of turnover Since turnover data was available at Time 2, the data was analyzed to determine

which variables were longitudinally related to actual turnover in the sample. Seven

participants from study one that were unable to be contacted for study two were

treated as having left their organisations (leavers). Forty-six respondents from study

one (including two employees on leave) that were contacted at their organisational e-

mail address, yet did not participate in study two, were included as stayers. Of the 26

contacted by mail or telephone, only one was still working at their organisation.

Thus, of the sample of 198 in study one that volunteered to participate in study two,

32 employees were taken as having departed their organisations.

First, a comparison of stayers and leavers on their study one variables was

conducted. Table 9-6 shows that study one respondents that subsequently left their

organisations had significantly higher external locus of control, turnover intentions,

and intention to change their job status. Stayers reported significantly lower job

insecurity at Time 1, as well as significantly higher employability, job satisfaction,

affective commitment and contextual performance, as might be expected. Stayers

and leavers though did not differ on their subjective job dependency.

211

Table 9-6 Descriptive statistics and t-tests comparing variables between stayers and leavers

N Mean Std.

Deviationt df Sig.

1. Internal LOC Leavers 32 5.03 .91 .94 165 .359 Stayers 166 5.09 .84 2. External LOC Leavers 32 4.02 .94 5.20 164 .000 Stayers 165 3.59 1.06 3. Neg. Affect Leavers 32 3.65 .80 .47 163 .638 Stayers 164 3.68 .75 4. Job Leavers 32 1.55 .82 2.95 163 .004 insecurity Stayers 164 1.37 .78 5. Multiple job Leavers 32 1.91 1.89 4.21 165 .000 options Stayers 166 2.57 2.02 6. Personal Leavers 32 4.53 2.49 1.12 165 .265 freedom Stayers 166 4.73 2.35 7. Prefer perm. Leavers 32 5.28 1.87 6.09 162 .000 work Stayers 163 6.01 1.53 8. Employability Leavers 32 2.08 .74 3.71 164 .000 Stayers 165 2.26 .64 11. Sub. job Leavers 32 5.41 1.13 1.28 164 .203 dependency Stayers 165 5.29 1.27 12. Psychol. Leavers 32 3.02 .55 1.85 165 .066 well-being Stayers 166 3.09 .44 13. Job Leavers 32 2.63 .75 2.84 162 .005 satisfaction Stayers 163 2.78 .66 14. Affective Leavers 32 4.47 .98 1.99 164 .049 commitment Stayers 165 4.66 1.19 16.Continuance Leavers 31 4.41 1.14 1.90 165 .059 commitment Stayers 166 4.62 1.34 17. Contextual Leavers 31 5.48 .54 5.28 165 .000 performance Stayers 166 5.75 .67 18. Turnover Leavers 32 2.41 1.17 8.86 163 .000 intentions Stayers 164 1.76 .94 19. Intention to Leavers 32 3.14 1.43 14.12 164 .000 chge job status Stayers 165 1.86 1.16

Next, as turnover was a dichotomous variable it was dummy coded (leaver = 0,

stayer = 1). Logistic regression was used for data analyses, controlling for age, locus

of control (internal and external) at Step 1, and the level of turnover intentions at

Time 1 at Step 2. Separate regressions were run for job insecurity, employability,

and job status. As these analyses were exploratory, in Step 3 each independent

variable was added to the regression equation in isolation, thereby producing

separate regression models to better determine the influence of covariates.

Goodness-of-fit was evaluated using Hosmer and Lemeshow tests, and the statistical

significance was assessed using Wald χ2 tests. Results of the significant logistic

regressions are shown in Tables 9-7 (a) and (b).

212

Table 9-7 (a) Logistic regression analysis of the significant factors associated with turnover controlling for Time 1 turnover intentions

Stayers Vs Leavers 95% Confidence interval

for odds ratio Variables B Wald test

(z-ratio) Odds

ratio Upper Lower

Controls:

Age (in years) .09*** 13.24 1.094 1.042 1.148

Internal LOC -.19 .46 .825 .472 1.443

External LOC -.13 .34 .876 .560 1.369

Covariate:

Turnover intentions -.54* 5.66 .583 .373 .909

Time 1 predictor:

Employability .80* 4.26 2.218 1.041 4.729

(Constant) -.88 .12 .414

Hosmer & Lemeshow Test χ2 = 3.833, df = 8 , p = .872

Controls:

Age (in years) .07** 7.85 1.069 1.020 1.119

Internal LOC .08 .07 1.079 .610 1.908

External LOC -.41 3.04 .663 .418 1.052

Covariate:

Turnover intentions -.28 1.35 .757 .474 1.21

Time 1 predictor:

Job status 1.97*** 16.44 7.19 2.771 18.662

(Constant) -.12 .01 .89

Hosmer & Lemeshow Test χ2 = 4.584, df = 8 , p = .801

* p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p< .001.

Job insecurity did not predict turnover (Wald statistic = .691, df = 1, p = 41). Of the

other regressions run only two were statistically significant. The overall model for

employability was statistically reliable, χ2 (5, 193) = 31.63, p < .001), indicating that

the predictors, as a set, reliably distinguish between leavers and stayers. Of the

respondent characteristics, age (OR = 1.094, p < .001) emerged as a significant

213

predictor of turnover such that the odds of staying rose by 9.4% for every year older

a participant was. According to the Wald statistic, turnover intentions at Time 1 (OR

= .583, p < .05) were also significant, suggesting that for each one unit reduction in

turnover intent respondents had 42% greater odds of staying (1- .583 = .417).

Beyond the effects of age and turnover intention, employability (OR = 2.218, p <

.05) was shown to be a significant predictor of turnover. Participants confident in

their chances of employment outside the organisation had more than twice the odds

of staying than leaving.

Significant differences were found in the turnover rate between temporaries and

permanents (χ2 (1, 198) = 29.82, p < .001) as well. Thirty-six percent of temporaries

left their organisations compared to only 6% of permanents. In fact, 75% of all those

that departed were temporaries. The overall regression model for job status was

statistically reliable, χ2 (5, 193) = 45.84, p < .001). Table 9-7 (a) shows that turnover

was significantly associated with job status (OR = 7.19, p < .001) even after age and

turnover intentions at Time 1 are accounted for. In other words, temporaries had

over seven times the odds of leaving compared to permanents.

Since 75% of the leavers were temporaries and leavers also had significantly higher

intentions to change their job status, a supplemental analysis was conducted to see if

these factors acted as confounds. Another regression therefore was run, controlling

for these variables to test whether employability predicted turnover above and

beyond the effects of job status and intentions to change job status. These results are

shown in Table 9-7 (b).

The predictors as a group explained significant variance in turnover (χ2 (7, 192) =

50.28, p < .001); however, employability did not hold as a significant predictor once

job status was accounted for. Beyond the effects of age (OR = 1.083, p < .01), job

status (OR = 5.271, p < .01) was found to be a significant predictor of turnover.

Thus, participant employability was not significantly associated with turnover.

214

Table 9-7 (b) Logistic regression analysis of the significant factors associated with turnover controlling for Time 1 turnover intention, job status and intention to change job status

Stayers Vs Leavers 95% Confidence interval

for odds ratio Variables B Wald test

(z-ratio) Odds

ratio Upper Lower

Controls:

Age (in years) .08** 9.37 1.083 1.029 1.140

Internal LOC .03 .01 1.03 .563 1.889

External LOC -.31 1.55 .734 .450 1.195

Covariate:

Turnover intentions -.21 .712 .807 .491 1.327

Time 1 predictors:

Job status 1.66** 8.74 5.271 1.751 15.862

Intention to change job status

-.20 1.079 .816 .556 1.197

Employability .38 .736 1.455 .618 3.425

(Constant) -1.08 .16 .340

Hosmer & Lemeshow Test χ2 = 5.852, df = 8 , p = .664

** p < .01

Moderator analyses - Hypothesis 2 The adverse effects of job insecurity were hypothesized to be moderated by job

embeddedness. Job satisfaction, affective commitment, continuance commitment,

and contextual performance were predicted to be highest and turnover intentions

lowest when fit, sacrifice or links are high and job insecurity low. Conversely, job

satisfaction, affective commitment, continuance commitment, and contextual

performance were predicted to be lowest and turnover intentions highest when fit,

sacrifice or links are low and job insecurity high.

For each regression equation, in the first step the dependent variable was regressed

on to the control variables, (age, external locus of control, and internal locus of

control) whose confounding effects were detected in Study 1. The centred

independent variable (job insecurity), and moderator variables (fit, sacrifice, or links)

215

were entered at the second step. In Step 3 the two-way cross-product terms were

entered into the equation.

Fit as a moderator of job insecurity Contrary to expectations, no significant interactions were detected for job insecurity

and fit. Fit though significantly predicted all five outcomes. For job satisfaction, the

model was significant (F (2, 108) = 23.66, p < .05) explaining 33.0% (adjusted) of

the variance in job satisfaction. Of the three control variables tested in the model,

only the regression coefficient for age (β = .21, p < .01) achieved significance.

Although job insecurity failed to reach significance (β = -.16, ns), fit was found to be

a strong (β = .45, p < .001) predictor of job satisfaction.

Results in Table 9-8 also show that the interaction failed to reach significance in the

prediction of affective commitment. Fit however significantly predicted affective

commitment (F (2, 109) = 61.35, p < .001) with the model explaining 55.9%

(adjusted) of variance. Both age (β = .18, p < .01) and internal locus of control (β =

.16, p < .05) reached significance. Yet again job insecurity was insignificant, but fit

(β = .70, p < .001) significantly predicted affective commitment.

Again the interaction of job insecurity and fit failed to reach significance in the

prediction of continuance commitment. Continuance commitment though was

significantly predicted by both job insecurity (β = .23, p < .05) and fit (β = .24, p <

.05). The overall model was significant (F (2, 110) = 3.84, p < .05) yet explained

only 5.5% (adjusted) of variance in continuance commitment. None of the control

variables reached significance in the overall model.

No moderator effects were found for the prediction of contextual performance.

Significant main effects (F (2, 108) = 36.29, p < .001) were detected, with the model

explaining 43.0% (adjusted) of variance. Of the control variables tested in the

model, only age (β = .21, p < .01) achieved significance. Although job insecurity (β

= -.02, ns) failed to reach significance, fit was found to be a strong (β = .59, p < .001)

predictor of contextual performance.

216

The interaction of job insecurity and fit also failed to reach significance in the

prediction of turnover intentions. Fit did however significantly predict turnover

intentions (F (2, 109) = 13.53, p < .001) explaining 23.5% (adjusted) of the variance.

Age again achieved significance (β = -.27, p < .01). Job insecurity (β = .13, NS)

again was insignificant, and fit (β = -.37, p < .001) negatively predicted turnover

intent.

The failure of the job insecurity variable to significantly predict any of the outcomes,

save continuance commitment warranted further investigation. A check of the

correlations between job insecurity, fit, and the outcome variables indicated that

there were very strong correlations between fit and all the outcomes, except for

continuance commitment, ranging from -.44 (with turnover intentions) to .73 (with

affective commitment). The existence of substantial correlations among a set of

variables usually indicates multicolinearity. This problem results in unstable

significance levels and ß values for the correlated predictors (i.e., a small difference

in the data can result in very different significance levels and ß values for the

correlated predictors) (Cohen & Cohen, 1983). Thus, the regression results

presented in Table 9-8 may be unreliable.

217

Table 9-8 Regression results for outcome variables as a function of job insecurity and fit. Job satisfaction

N = 114 Affective commitment

N = 115 Continuance commitment

N = 116 Contextual performance

N = 114 Turnover intention

N = 115 Step 1:

Age .24* .20* .21** .26** .18** .18** .05 -.02 -.02 .28** .21** .21** -.30** -.27** -.27**

External LOC .01 -.02 -.02 .02 .02 .02 .14 .17 .17 -.02 -.02 -.02 -.05 -.03 -.03

Internal LOC .18 .09 .10 .22* .16* .16* -.09 -.05 -.05 .13 .08 .08 -.04 .03 .03

Step 2:

Job Insecurity (JI) -.16 -.16 -.01 -.01 .23* .23* -.03 -.03 .13 .13

Fit .46*** .45*** .70*** .70*** .24* .24* .60*** .59*** -.37** -.37***

Step 3:

JI X Fit

.10 -.01 -.01 .07 -.03

R2 (adjusted) .08* .36*** .37 .08** .56*** .56 .03 .09* .09 .06* .43*** .43 .06* .27*** .27

∆ R2 .08* .32*** .01 .08** .48*** .00 .03 .06 .00 .06* .37*** .00 .06* .21*** .00

Standardized betas are reported. * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p< .001.

218

Sacrifice as a moderator of job insecurity Two significant interactions were found for job insecurity and sacrifice. Results in

Table 9-9 shows that the interaction failed to reach significance in the prediction of

job satisfaction. Significant main effects (F (2, 108) = 7.87, p < .001) for job

insecurity however were found, explaining 15.9% (adjusted) of variance. Of the

control variables tested in the model, only the regression coefficient for age (β = .29,

p < .001) remained significant in the full model, suggesting that job satisfaction

increases with age. Although sacrifice failed to reach significance (β = .16, NS), job

insecurity (β = -.30, p < .01) was a significant predictor of job satisfaction as

anticipated.

Sacrifice moderated the relationship between job insecurity and affective

commitment. The results show that the overall model was significant (F (1, 108) =

4.69, p < .05), explaining 22.7% (adjusted) of variance. Again, only the regression

coefficient for age (β = .31, p < .001) reached significance. The regression

coefficient for job insecurity (β = -.18, ns) was in the expected direction but was

insignificant in the model. Sacrifice (β = .32, p < .01) though achieved significance

explaining a further 13.3% (adjusted) variance in affective commitment.

No moderator effects were found for the prediction of continuance commitment.

Significant main effects were found for both job insecurity (β = .29, p < .05) and

sacrifice (β = .33, p < .01). The model, although significant (F (2, 108) = 5.45, p <

.01), explained only 8.0% (adjusted) of variance. None of the control variables

emerged as significant in the model.

Significant moderator effects were found for the predictors of contextual

performance with the overall model (F (1, 107) = 5.69, p < .05) explaining 16.0%

(adjusted) of variance. Of the control variables tested in the model, only age (β =

.33, p < .001) achieved significance. Main effects were found for only job insecurity

(β = -.26, p < .05). The interaction of job insecurity and sacrifice (β = -.22, p < .05)

as already noted achieved significance.

219

Simple slope tests for significant job insecurity and sacrifice interactions To aid in the interpretation of the significant interactions, as explained in Chapter 5,

the regression results were used to plot a series of points ranging from one standard

deviation below the mean to one standard deviation above the mean on the

independent variables. The simple slopes generated were then tested to determine

which, if any, were significantly different from zero.

In the preceding section, two significant interactions for job insecurity and sacrifice

are reported. The first of those reported concerns the prediction of affective

commitment. Figure 9-1 shows the form of that interaction. Supporting hypothesis 2

we find that when sacrifice is high, participants experienced significantly higher

levels of affective commitment when job insecurity was low rather than high (β = -

.35, t = 2.31, p < .05). When sacrifice was low however, the level of job insecurity

did not significantly affect affective commitment levels (β = -.01, NS).

Fig. 9-1 Relationship between job insecurity and affective commitment as a function of sacrifice

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

LOW Job Insecurity HIGH Job Insecurity

Aff

ectiv

e C

omm

itmen

t

Low sacrificeHigh sacrifice

220

The second significant interaction between job insecurity and sacrifice concerns the

prediction of contextual performance. Figure 9-2 shows the shape of that interaction,

which also supports Hypothesis 2. When sacrifice was high, respondents reported

significantly higher levels of contextual performance when job insecurity was low

rather than high (β = -.47, t = 2.89, p < .01). Just as with affective commitment,

when sacrifice was low, the level of job insecurity did not significantly affect

contextual performance levels (β = -.06, NS).

Fig. 9-2 Relationship between job insecurity and contextual performance as a function of sacrifice

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5

4.6

4.7

4.8

4.9

5

5.1

5.2

LOW Job Insecurity HIGH Job Insecurity

Con

text

ual P

erfo

rman

ce

Low sacrifice

High sacrifice

Finally, the interaction of job insecurity and sacrifice failed to reach significance in

the prediction of turnover intentions. Significant main effects for sacrifice (F (2,

109) = 6.35, p < .01) were found, explaining 14.5% (adjusted) of variance. Age

again achieved significance (β = -.34, p < .001) in the model. Job insecurity (β = .22,

p = .055) almost reached significance, and sacrifice (β = -.21, p < .05) significantly

predicted turnover intent. Thus, hypothesis 2 was partially supported, such that

sacrifice moderated the effects of job insecurity on affective commitment and

contextual performance.

221

Table 9-9 Regression results for outcome variables as a function of job insecurity and sacrifice. Job satisfaction

N = 114

Affective commitment N = 116

Continuance commitment N = 114

Contextual performance N = 114

Turnover intention

N = 116 Step 1:

Age .24* .28** .29** .26** .29** .31*** .05 .02 .02 .28** .31** .33*** -.30** -.33*** -.34***

External LOC .01 -.05 -.04 .02 -.03 -.01 .15 .16 .16 -.02 -.06 -.04 -.05 -.01 -.02

Internal LOC .18 .18 .06 .22* .09 .10 -.07 -.09 -.09 .13 .04 .05 -.04 .07 .06

Step 2:

Job Insecurity (JI) -.25* -.30** -.10 -.18 .28* .29* -.18 -.26* .16 .22

Sacrifice .17 .16 .33** .32** .33** .33** .16 .15 -.22* -.21*

Step 3:

JI X Sacrifice

-.13 -.19* -.02 -.22* .14

R2 (adjusted) .05* .16*** .17 .08** .20*** .23* .01 .08** .08 .06* .12* .16* .05* .16** .16

∆ R2 .05* .11*** .01 .08** .12*** .03* .01 .07** .00 .06* .06* .04* .05* .11** .00

Standardized betas are reported. * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p< .001.

222

Links as a moderator of job insecurity Just as with the fit subscale of job embeddedness, no significant interactions were

found for job insecurity and links in the prediction of the study’s dependent

variables. In fact links did not significantly predict any of the work outcomes. This

time though multicolinearity is not a likely cause since links did not correlate with

job insecurity, and had only weak associations with the outcome variables. As well,

job insecurity did not significantly predict continuance commitment.

Results in Table 9-10 show that for job satisfaction, significant main effects F (2,

108) = 6.45, p < .01) were detected, explaining 14.0% (adjusted) of variance. Of the

control variables tested in the model, only the regression coefficient for age (β = .28,

p < .01) remained significant in the full model. As previously stated, links failed to

reach significance (β = -.04, NS). Job insecurity (β = -.34, p < .01) however was a

significant predictor of job satisfaction.

The results show that significant main effects were present in the model to predict

affective commitment (F (2, 109) = 3.97, p < .05) with the model explaining 12.5%

(adjusted) of variance. Again, only the regression coefficient for age (β = .29, p <

.01) emerged significant. The regression coefficient for links (β = .06, NS) was not

significant in the model. Significant main effects were found for job insecurity (β = -

.27, p < .01), such that increased job insecurity was associated with reduced affective

commitment.

No moderator effects were found for the prediction of contextual performance.

Significant main effects (F (2, 108) = 4.41, p < .05) were found though, with the model

explaining 11.9% (adjusted) of variance. Of the control variables tested in the

model, only age (β = .30, p < .01) emerged significant. Main effects were found for

only job insecurity (β = -.26, p < .01). Links (β = .12, NS) and the interaction term

(β = -.03, NS) failed to reach significance.

Finally, the interaction of job insecurity and links failed to reach significance in the

prediction of turnover intentions. Significant main effects (F (2, 109) = 4.03, p <

.05) were detected with the model explaining 11.1% (adjusted) of the variance. Once

223

again age was significant (β = -.34, p < .001) in the model. Job insecurity (β = .26, p

< .01) was significant, but links (β = .05, NS) again was not significant in the

prediction of turnover intentions. In sum, hypothesis 2 was not supported for

organisational links.

The results of study two are now concluded. The next Chapter presents a discussion

of these findings.

224

Table 9-10 Regression results for outcome variables as a function of job insecurity and links. Job satisfaction

N = 114

Affective commitment N = 115

Contextual performance N = 116

Turnover intention

N = 115 Step 1:

Age .24* .29** .29** .26** .30** .29*** .28** .30** .30** -.30** -.34*** -.34***

External LOC .01 -.05 -.05 .02 -.02 -.02 -.02 -.07 -.07 -.05 -.01 -.02

Internal LOC .18 .08 .08 .22* .14 .13 .13 .06 .05 -.04 .04 .02

Step 2:

Job Insecurity (JI) -.33** -.34** -.26** -.27** -.26** -.26** .27** .26**

Links -.02 -.04 .06 .06 .11 .12 .03 .05

Step 3:

JI X Links

-.01 -.04 -.03 -.09

R2 (adjusted) .05* .14** .14 .07** .12* .12 .07* .12* .12 .05* .11* .11

∆ R2 .05* .09** .00 .07** .05* .00 .07* .05* .00 .05* .06* .00

Standardized betas are reported. * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p< .001.

225

Chapter 10: Discussion – Study 2

Presented in this Chapter is a discussion of the results of study two. The two

objectives of this study were: first, to assess the long term effects of job insecurity;

and second, to examine job embeddedness as a potential moderator of the

relationships between job insecurity and work outcomes. The Chapter concludes

with a discussion about perceived job insecurity as a predictor of turnover.

Long term effects of job insecurity A primary purpose of the current study was to examine the temporal effects of job

insecurity on work outcomes. First, the longitudinal data showed that the level of job

insecurity did not vary across time. For this sample then, the perceived probability

of job loss remained stable over time. Whilst such a result provides a degree of

reassurance for the organisations examined, the negative effects of job insecurity also

persisted over time. As well as job insecurity levels remaining steady, reactions to

job insecurity did not change across time. For example, job insecurity was

associated with reduced levels of job satisfaction and higher levels of turnover

intentions at both data collections. Similar results are reported in a number of studies

(e.g., Hartley et al., 1991; Dekker & Schaufeli, 1995; Rosenblatt & Ruvio, 1996).

These findings support the conclusion that job insecurity has detrimental

consequences for employee work attitudes over time and even in contexts where no

immediate job threat exists (De Witte, 1999; Klandermans & Van Vuuren, 1999).

Such results add to previous theoretical and empirical work conceptualizing and

assessing job insecurity as a subjective phenomenon (e.g., Greenhalgh & Rosenblatt,

1984; Ashford et al., 1989; Davy et al., 1997). Better understanding of job insecurity

perceptions is needed since objective job threats generally appear to be rising with

large numbers of organisations engaging in workforce reductions (Kozlowski, Chao,

Smith & Hedlund, 1993). Thus activities such as organisational restructuring need to

be implemented with great care (Hellgren & Sverke, 2003) to minimise such

detrimental effects on their employees. Investigating ways in which job insecurity

226

can be avoided or minimised therefore represents an important area of future

research.

Job insecurity was found to significantly predict continuance commitment over time.

Specifically, job insecurity at Time 1 predicted continuance commitment at Time 2,

controlling for prior levels of this variable. In particular, the more likely an

employee perceived that job loss was probable the more continuance commitment

the employee felt one year later. A likely reason for this reaction is that fear of

losing one’s job makes the benefits of organisational membership more salient.

Dissatisfaction with the level of job security provided by one’s organisation then, is

likely to lead the individual to consider finding another job (exit), improving their

situation (voice), or staying and supporting their organisation (loyalty) (Hirschman,

1970). Respondents in the current study appear to have chosen the third option.

Even though continuance commitment is positively associated with increased age

(Meyer, Allen & Smith, 1993; Meyer et al., 2002), participant age (M = 44 yrs.) was

not a significant predictor of Time 2 continuance commitment. Thus, this sample

characteristic does not provide an explanation for this strengthening of continuance

commitment across time. Perhaps then job insecurity awakens employees to

consider more seriously the investments they have made in their organisations

together with the costs associated with losing those investments should job loss

occur. For those more secure in their jobs, conversely, these investments may be less

conspicuous and further development of continuance commitment does not occur.

Unexpectedly, findings from the longitudinal data did not show job insecurity as a

significant predictor of any of the other work outcomes. The absence of any

objective job threats in the sample is a possible explanation. Both age and Time 1

levels of the outcome variables were significant predictors of Time 2 outcomes

though. Specifically, the older the employee and the higher the earlier measure of

the outcome, the higher that outcome was one year later (for job satisfaction,

affective commitment and contextual performance). In each case prior levels of the

outcomes were strong predictors, with standardized betas greater than .51, of

subsequent levels of those outcomes. With such a large proportion of the variance

explained by the covariate, and no immediate job threat, it is not surprising then that

Time 1 job insecurity failed as a predictor of Time 2 outcomes. For turnover

227

intentions, the findings showed that the younger the employee and the higher their

Time 1 intention to leave, the higher their turnover intention was one year later.

Even so, these predictors (age and Time 1 intent) only accounted for a small amount

(8.0%) of variability in Time 2 turnover intentions. Clearly, many other unaccounted

for factors contributed to the turnover intentions of the respondents.

Although the present study found little evidence of long term effects, it may be

premature to conclude that job insecurity has no long term effects. Few studies have

examined the long term effects of job insecurity and fewer still have controlled for

baseline levels of outcome variables (Sverke et al., 2002). Longitudinal studies

examining job insecurity often take place in contexts where an objective job threat

already exists. For example, a number of studies finding significant long term effects

for job insecurity use samples from organisations being restructured (Armstrong-

Stassen et al., 1994; Dekker & Schaufeli, 1995; Mak & Mueller, 2001) or downsized

(Heaney et al., 1994; Kivimäki, Vahtera, Pentti, & Ferrie, 2000) or in bankruptcy

(Mohr, 2000). In the current study no such contextual events were occurring. A

likely explanation for the lack of evidence for long term effects therefore is that

changes in job insecurity perceptions were not sufficient in the sample to enable

detection of any effects. As stated earlier, the level of job insecurity did not vary

across time.

Despite this limitation, the current study does contribute to our understanding of how

job insecurity causally relates to work outcomes by providing evidence of the

significant contribution that baseline levels of dependent variables can have in

predicting subsequent levels of those variables. For instance, Time 1 contextual

performance explained an additional 34.0% of variance in Time 2 contextual

performance. When investigating long term effects, some studies (e.g., Armstrong-

Stassen et al., 1994; Dekker & Schaufeli, 1995) compare previous levels of outcomes

with subsequent levels of those outcomes. Such comparisons do not take into

account that, the magnitude of change is dependent on the baseline level of the

outcome. A methodological strength of the current study is that it did control for

prior levels of the work outcomes and found that these covariates had strong

predictive power in explaining Time 2 outcome. Given the significant contribution

228

that prior levels of a dependent variable found here, it is recommended that future

longitudinal studies control baseline measures during analyses.

Job embeddedness as a moderator of job insecurity As already noted in Chapter 7, the research model for the current study proposed that

the adverse effects of job insecurity would be moderated by job embeddedness,

assessed via the dimensions of fit, links and sacrifice. Specifically, the work

outcomes of job satisfaction, affective commitment, continuance commitment, and

contextual performance were hypothesized to be lowest and turnover intentions

highest when embeddedness was high and job insecurity high. Findings from each

dimension of job embeddedness are now discussed.

Results indicated that organisation-related sacrifice moderated relations between job

insecurity and two work outcomes. Specifically, the findings suggest that the

negative effects of job insecurity are exacerbated when employees perceive their

sacrifices to be great, lessening both their affective commitment and contextual

performance contributions. As hypothesized, the more job insecurity and the more

sacrifice perceived the lower affective commitment and contextual performance

behaviour reported. Interestingly, job insecurity had no main effects on affective

commitment and sacrifice had no main effects on contextual performance. These

effects therefore appeared only when both high insecurity and high sacrifice were

present. Thus it appears that only when the employee has a ‘lot to lose’ in terms of

financial benefits and believes that job loss is highly probable affective commitment

and contextual performance deteriorate. In such a situation an employee might

develop feelings of helplessness, thereby attenuating motivation (Seligman, 1975) by

reducing their affective commitment. In addition, such feelings might translate into

their work effort, by the employee withdrawing contextual performance behaviour.

These findings add some support for the view high job insecurity is related to

reduced work effort (Greenhalgh & Rosenblatt, 1984; King, 2000; Rosenblatt &

Ruvio, 1996).

Findings also showed that organisation-related sacrifice had independent effects on

two of the work outcomes. Specifically, the higher the level of sacrifice the

229

employee reported the higher was their continuance commitment. At first glance,

these two variables might appear to have some conceptual overlap, since both

concern the costs associated with leaving an organisation. Yet, as Mitchell et al.

(2001) explains, the continuance commitment measure (Allen & Meyer, 1990)

includes items relating to perceived lack of job alternatives, whereas organisation-

related sacrifice does not. Consistent with this view, correlations between these

variables in the present study were non-significant.

The second significant independent effects found relate to turnover intentions.

Specifically, the higher the level of sacrifice the employee perceived the lower their

turnover intentions. Both of these results are consistent with intuition and Mitchell et

al.’s (2001) findings. As explained in the preceding Chapter, based on the

exploratory factor analysis results, the sacrifice subscale was reduced by five items to

retain only four items. All retained concerned the level of financial benefits to be

sacrificed. Mitchell et al.’s (2001) conceptualisation of this dimension of job

embeddedness is more inclusive however. Not only does it refer to the perceived

cost of tangible benefits, such as financial ones, but also it concerns intangible

benefits forfeited if the employee resigns, such as loss of friendships or interesting

work. Thus, perhaps some of the unexplained variance in the variables may be due

to these intangible, yet unaccounted for, benefits. Inclusion of these intangibles may

mean that future studies do detect moderating effects for organisation-related

sacrifice in relationships between job insecurity and work outcomes. While these

results look promising only further empirical work will improve insights into the

nature of these relationships.

As reported in the previous Chapter, no significant interactive effects were found for

organisational fit and job insecurity in the prediction of any of the outcome variables.

Thus the current findings did not support organisational fit as a moderator of the

relationships between job insecurity and work outcomes. One possible explanation

for these findings is that employees with high organisational compatibility believe

the tangible benefits of such fit can be easily substituted or attained at another

organisation, since as person-organisation fit theory (Cable & Judge, 1996; Kristof,

1996) suggests individuals select jobs on the basis of value congruence. Thus a high

job threat might only temporarily disrupt the benefits of attaining organisational fit,

230

since the individual can re-embed in another organisation. Therefore high

organisational fit under conditions of high job threat did not induce negative

reactions to the work outcomes. By comparison, highly insecure employees with

high organisation-related sacrifice might see the loss of these tangible financial

benefits less easy to replace should job loss occur. For them, re-embedding in

another organisation may not readily restore such lost benefits, thereby eliciting

negative reactions to the work outcomes.

Although no moderator effects were found, organisational fit did however

independently significantly predict all of the study’s outcomes. Specifically, the

more an employee felt compatible with their organisation, the higher was their job

satisfaction, affective commitment, and continuance commitment. As well, the

higher employee fit the lower were their turnover intentions, adding support to

previous findings (Mitchell et al., 2001). Extending this work, and as speculated by

Mitchell and his colleagues, organisational fit was found to be a strong predictor of

contextual performance. As noted in Chapter 9, these findings for fit should be

interpreted cautiously since the problem of multicolinearity in the data was

suspected. Replication using a larger sample is warranted to re-examine these

relationships before any conclusions are to be drawn regarding the efficacy of fit as a

moderator of job insecurity effects.

No significant interactions were found for organisational links and job insecurity in

the prediction of the work outcomes. Unlike organisational fit, no independent

effects were detected for organisational links. Links relates to the extent and strength

of formal and informal connections an employee has with their organisation, such as

work or friendship groups. The more links an individual has, the more difficult it is

socially, psychologically, and financially for them to sever such ties by leaving their

organisation (Mitchell et al., 2001). These social relationships from inclusion in

networks generated by organisational membership provide various benefits to

individuals, such as social support (Van Emmerik & Sanders, 2004). Leaving the

organisation therefore, means breaking such links and interferes with these

relationships.

231

As stated in Chapter 9, based on the exploratory factor analysis results, the links

subscale was reduced from seven to two items. One retained item assessed how

many co-workers the respondent interacted with regularly. The retained other item

concerned how many co-workers were highly dependent on the participant. As such,

this measure assessed the quantity of such ties without consideration of the quality of

such ties. Even the items not retained (tenure in the organisation, job, and industry;

and number of work teams and work committees) for the current study involve only

quantity aspects of organisational links. Possibly then, such a narrow view

assessment of organisational links contributed to the lack of significant results.

Further conceptual and empirical work is therefore recommended so that quality

aspects of organisational links can be captured so that future research can investigate

the extent to which organisational links influence work outcomes.

In summary, although the evidence found for the job embeddedness subscales is

encouraging (e.g., distinct factors, adequate internal consistencies), additional testing

with other samples is needed. Future research may indicate that items within the job

embeddedness subscales scales should be revised. For example, the present findings

suggest that in its present form the links subscale needs to be expanded to include

quality aspects of organisational links. Partial support was also found for the

moderating effects of organisation-related sacrifice in the job insecurity work

outcomes relationships. Job embeddedness has not been considered as a moderator

of such relationships in other studies. Furthermore, the current study adds to our

understanding of job embeddedness by including relevant confounds such as age and

internal and external locus of control.

Predictors of turnover Although not a main objective of this study, understanding how job insecurity relates

to turnover is important for organisations. Findings from the longitudinal data failed

to show that job insecurity predicted turnover. Rather than withdrawing from their

jobs, insecure participants in study two appear to have chosen to remain with their

organisations. Research consistently demonstrates a positive association between job

insecurity and turnover intentions (Adkins et al., 2001; Ameen, et al., 1995; Ashford

et al., 1989; Barling & Kelloway, 1996; Chirumbolo & Hellgren, 2003; Davy et al.,

232

1991 & 1997; Dekker & Schaufeli, 1995; Greenhalgh, 1982; O'Quin & LoTempio,

1998; Rosenblatt & Ruvio, 1996; Rosenblatt et al., 1999; Ruvio & Rosenblatt, 1999;

Tivendell & Bourbonnais, 2000). Similarly, intentions to stay and job security are

positively related (Iverson & Roy, 1994). Job insecurity is argued to induce

withdrawal responses (Ashford et al., 1989) and encourage individuals to seek

alternate, more secure, employment opportunities (Greenhalgh, 1983; Greenhalgh &

Rosenblatt, 1984).

Whereas there has been much research exploring relationships between job

insecurity and turnover intentions, there has been relatively little empirical work

concerning actual turnover. Unlike previous research (Arnold & Feldman, 1982;

Blau, 1994), job insecurity did not predict turnover in study two. Such findings are

not unique however. Even research undertaken in an organisation following

significant budget cuts failed to find job insecurity as a significant predictor of

turnover (Adkins et al., 2001). Despite these results, turnover was predicted by age

and job status. Specifically, the odds of an employee staying with their organisation

increased by 9.4% for every year older the employee was. As well, temporaries had

over seven times the odds of leaving compared to permanents. Sixteen per cent of

the sample left their organisations between the two data collections. Not all those

turnover decisions however were likely to be voluntary since 75 per cent of the

leavers were in temporary jobs. Understandably, some of these temporaries would

have had their temporary contracts terminated in the time between data collections.

For them, regardless of their job insecurity it was time to go. Given these conditions,

it is therefore not surprising that job insecurity did not predict turnover in the sample.

Like other longitudinal studies, the present study was affected by the problems of

self-selection and attrition (Cook & Campbell, 1979). Comparisons between Time 2

respondents and non-respondents in terms of mean levels of Time 1 variables

showed that Study 2 participants were significantly older, more committed, and

performed more contextual performance; and were less likely to turnover. Such

factors may partially explain why more temporal effects for job insecurity were not

found, since less dedicated and loyal employees left their organisations or chose not

to participate in the follow-up study. Given the low response rate to study one (about

32%), as noted in Chapter 6 it is possible that some of the highly insecure did not

233

participate in this research at all. From those that chose to participate in study one,

about half volunteered contact details. Of those, about 60% chose to respond to the

present study. Given this funnelling effect, these findings may be an artefact of self-

selection biases. Another limitation of the current study concerns however turnover

was assessed. Turnover data was indirectly collected. Thus both voluntary and

involuntary turnover data were analysed. Had this not been the case, it is possible

alternate results may have been found. It is therefore advisable that caution be

exercised when accepting these findings.

Further research across an array of organisational settings and types of workers is

therefore recommended to explore these issues. Also, due to the inherent job

instability of temporary workers, it is recommended that future research collect data

from exit interviews to identify resignation reasons, thus eliminating cases of

involuntary turnover (contracts terminated). Such data would enable more reliably

determining the role job insecurity plays in turnover decisions. Finally, another

attrition problem resulted in the small sample of temporary employees participating

in the study, thereby precluding exploration of differences between temporaries and

permanents in their levels of job embeddedness. Further research though can address

this problem.

234

Chapter 11: Conclusion

Traditionally employees of large organisations have experienced a culture of

“lifetime employment” (Brown, 1997; De Meuse et al., 2001). This expectation of a

lifetime contract has a long history, being strongly embedded both psychologically

and institutionally (Kluytmans & Ott, 1999). Until recently the dominant form of

employment was characterised by full-time employment for an indefinite period with

a single employer (Carnoy et al., 1997). Yet having a full-time permanent job is

likely to be confined to a smaller and smaller proportion of workers, if indeed it is an

option for anyone anymore (Brown, 1997). As certain traditions and expectations,

such as a “job for life” or full-time employment, lose their legitimacy employee

outcomes are a mixture of opportunities and anxieties subject to the skills and

resources they possess (Allen & Henry, 1997).

Recent increases in corporate restructuring and downsizing (Gowing et al., 1998)

have meant that jobs generally are becoming less secure (Brown, 1997; De Meuse et

al., 2001; Greenhalgh & Rosenblatt, 1984; Roskies & Louis-Guerin, 1990). Not

unexpectedly then, job insecurity is receiving increasing academic interest in

recognition of these rapidly changing work environments that can create job threats

(Cavanaugh & Noe, 1999). A growing body of evidence, reviewed in Chapter 2,

shows that job future uncertainty has damaging effects on employee and

organisational outcomes. Thus it is important to understand what may intensify or

alleviate job insecurity perceptions, thereby helping organisations and employees to

deal with perceived job threats.

The purpose of this dissertation was to explore an integrated model of moderators

and the consequences of job insecurity. Based on the literature, a model delineating

the process by which these moderators influence the work outcomes was developed.

Several demographic and dispositional characteristics were argued to confound how

job insecurity might impact on work outcomes. As well, a number of individual

difference variables were proposed that might moderate the effects that job insecurity

perceptions have on individual and work outcomes. One of those moderators was

235

temporary job status, since there is little research that examines how job insecurity

influences the work outcomes of temporaries (De Witte, 1999; Kinnuen & Nätti,

1994; Sloboda, 1999).

Overall, the findings from these studies supported the proposed models to some

degree and these results are outlined shortly. Employees were found to react

negatively to job insecurity. Employees however did not all react in the same way.

Reactions to job insecurity varied as a function of several employee characteristics.

Pre-existing demographic and dispositional differences were identified from the

literature and subsequently tested in the current research, and their effects are

discussed first. Overall conclusions from the research are presented next. Strengths

and limitations of these studies are then discussed. Following this, theoretical and

practical implications of these studies are provided, before concluding with

suggestions for future research.

What individual characteristics contributed to reactions to job insecurity?

In addition to replicating previous results, the influence of a number of individual

characteristics on perceived job insecurity was examined. These individual factors

included age, internal locus of control, external locus of control and negative

affectivity. Overall, the pattern of results for age supported the view that job

insecurity was highest for older employees (Hallier & Lyon, 1996; Kuhnert &

Vance, 1992; Yousef, 1998). These findings are consistent with the argument that

older employees who have spent the majority of their careers under the more

traditional psychological contract based on the exchange of loyalty for job security

have been slow to accept the more contemporary view that there is no longer a

guarantee of lifetime employment (Mirvis & Hall, 1994). For older employees

perhaps expectations of a ‘job for life’ are more ingrained than are such expectations

for younger employees.

Findings from the current research supported the view that both internal and external

locus of control contribute to individual variations in job insecurity perceptions. The

236

strong negative association between internal locus of control and job insecurity found

suggests that internals believe that job threats are dependent on their own behaviour.

To the degree that internals exhibit higher initiative performance (Blau, 1993), these

findings suggest that internals may engage in more effective problem-focused

coping, such as self-promotion to ensure their performance contributions are not left

unnoticed, thereby reducing their chances of being targeted as lay-off candidates. To

a lesser degree, showing a weak positive association with job insecurity, external

locus of control also explained variations in job insecurity perceptions. These

findings suggest that externals, those who perceive rewards are due to chance, rather

than their own efforts (Gatchel, 1980) believe any actions of their own will not

secure the reward of job continuity.

Finally, no significant main effects were found for negative affect in study one. As

explained in Chapter 6, a likely explanation for these results was that unlike other

research reporting significant effects for negative affect (Hellgren et al., 1999; Mak

& Mueller, 2000, 2001; Roskies et al., 1993) there were no objective job threats in

the research settings. Since the effects of negative affect are different for acute

stressors and chronic stressors (Chen & Spector, 1991), the lack of support for a

stronger role for negative affect in the current research is therefore not surprising.

Overall conclusions about job insecurity

Job insecurity was conceptualised as subjective feelings about the risk of job loss in

the current research. In Lazarus and Folkman’s (1984) terms, employees were asked

to evaluate the personal relevance of their job situation (primary appraisal). In other

words, calculate their expectations of job loss. It could be argued that employees are

far from precise in calculating their own risk of job loss. For instance, they may

exaggerate the risk because of media reports of job insecurity, or as an act of denial,

they may underestimate the risk to protect themselves from anxiety (Burchell, 2002).

It was employees’ perceptions of the job continuity risks associated with their job,

not the risk per se, that were of interest in the current research.

237

Findings from both studies showed that employees did not perceive their job

situations as equally threatening, since a range of values were indicated. Some

respondents expected their job to last as long as they desired, while others did not.

From the preceding section we are informed that age and locus of control contributed

significantly to variations in those expectations. However, a large amount of

variance in job insecurity remained unexplained in the current research. It can

therefore be concluded that interpretations about the objective environmental cues

regarding job continuity varied, and variations occurred in how much individuals

desired their job to last. By comparing the findings concerning the job insecurity of

the temporaries and permanents, a suggestion can be made as to whether it is the

interpretation factor or the expectation factor that is a stronger driver of job

insecurity perceptions.

Erroneously, study one predicted that temporaries would have higher job insecurity

than permanents. The finding that, collectively, temporaries and permanents had

similar job insecurity suggests that temporary job status should not be used as a

proxy ‘objective’ measure of job insecurity, given that some temporaries were found

to feel secure. It could be argued that secure temporaries are merely oblivious to the

objective cues in their organisational environment, being less informed than

permanents for example, about organisational changes that may threaten job

continuity, given the transient nature of their work. Such an explanation is consistent

with the sentiments of the partial inclusion approach to understanding temporary

workers discussed in Chapter 3.

It is also plausible to contend that secure temporaries had lower expectations

regarding the length of their job continuity, consistent with the view of some

observers (Jacobson & Hartley, 1991; Pearce, 1998). Therefore, since their desire to

retain their current job was low, their job insecurity score was consequentially low.

Correlational analysis supports this idea, given that for temporaries, job insecurity

and turnover intentions were significantly and strongly positively related. No such

association was found though for permanents. Thus, this comparison tends to favour

the explanation that for temporaries it was variations in the expectation factor of job

retention that was more pervasive in explaining why some temporaries felt secure.

238

Variations in the job insecurity of temporaries also informs us that whilst some

temporaries did not expect their jobs to last as long as desired, other temporaries did

not accept the level of job insecurity offered by their temporary positions. Such a

conclusion is based on the evidence that temporary job status and a number of the

individual difference variables jointly moderated reactions to job insecurity,

discussed in the next section.

Overall conclusions about moderators of job insecurity

The extent to which individuals worry about losing their jobs depends not only on

their perception of the probability of job loss but also on their anxieties about the

consequences of such a loss. The current research tested a number of moderators of

the relationships between job insecurity and work outcomes, some of which were

argued to influence the extent of powerlessness employees perceived over the

consequences of their potential job loss. Chapter 2 argued that to include

powerlessness into the measurement of job insecurity as a single construct does not

allow any examination of likely interactive effects between aspects of powerlessness

and job insecurity. Important information therefore can be lost if those control

aspects are subsumed within the variable itself. Three different sources of

powerlessness – all external to the organisation - namely choice of job status,

employability, and job dependency were investigated in study one. Temporary job

status together with both choice in job status and employability jointly moderated the

effects of job insecurity. Therefore conclusions drawn from these findings are now

presented.

Based on the current findings, choice in job status appears to be an important factor

in understanding how temporaries might react to job insecurity. An important

finding concerns turnover intentions. Temporaries that preferred temporary work

had similar turnover intentions to permanents, when little job insecurity was

perceived. This finding fits comfortably with the view that employees who hold

their temporary jobs voluntarily have more positive work attitudes than those who

feel compelled to work in temporary employment (Feldman et al., 1995; Krausz et

al., 1995; Krausz, 2000). This result also adds to our understanding of how choice in

239

job status affects temporaries by also considering job insecurity perceptions. The

findings also showed that, in contrast to their secure counterparts, insecure

temporaries that preferred temporary work had significantly higher turnover

intentions than permanents. So even though these temporaries preferred temporary

work, they intended to replace their current job with another temporary job, perhaps

one that offered greater prospects of job continuity.

Jointly these results support the argument that individuals might choose temporary

work based on both voluntary reasons and involuntary reasons (Ellingson et al.,

1998; Peiró et al., 2002; Tan & Tan, 2002; Von Hippel et al., 2000). In Chapter 3 it

was explained that choice to pursue temporary employment might include voluntary

factors, such as flexibility or task variety as well as involuntary factors, such as

difficulty in finding permanent work. A likely explanation for the current findings is

that, when secure, the involuntary reasons for accepting temporary work might not

be very important. Consequently, the attractiveness of flexible hours or task variety

curbs secure temporaries that prefer temporary work from leaving their current jobs.

In contrast, when insecure, the involuntary reasons for preferring temporary work

(difficulty in finding permanent work or tight labour markets) could be more salient,

thus motivating temporaries to intend to seek out other temporary jobs, in an effort to

minimize concern over those involuntary factors.

Permanent employment has a strong force of attraction for temporary employees,

since a number of descriptive studies show that temporaries would prefer a

permanent job if one were available (e.g., 63% and 60% - Cohany, 1996, 1998

respectively; 60% - Forde, 2001; 67% - Morris & Vekker, 2001). In study one

(Aronsson & Göransson, 1999), 74% of the temporaries indicated that they preferred

permanent work. Moreover, Aronsson and Göransson (1999) provide descriptive

data showing that more than half of their sample of temporary employees with jobs

in their desired occupation preferred permanent employment in an occupation other

than their preferred occupation. Along similar lines, Isaksson and Ballagh (2002)

report that temporaries that preferred permanent work were more inclined to think

about resigning their jobs irrespective of how job effort, in terms of workload, and

rewards, in terms of learning and skill development, were perceived. Taken together,

240

these findings strongly suggest the importance of choice in job status in determining

the work attitudes of temporary employees and their reactions to job insecurity.

Choice in job status was the only moderator tested in the current research that had an

impact on the direction of the turnover intentions of temporaries or their intentions to

change job status. For instance, even though different levels of employability and

organisational social support differentially influenced temporaries’ and permanents’

reactions to job insecurity, temporaries still reported significantly higher intentions

than permanents. Given these results - that temporaries had such a strong desire to

leave their jobs - the finding that secure temporaries that preferred temporary work

had similar turnover intentions to permanents is all the more astounding.

In Chapter 3 the studies reviewed in the work status congruence approach and

volition approach consistently document the organisational benefits, in terms of more

positive work outcomes, from hiring temporaries that prefer temporary work (e.g.,

Feldman et al., 1995; Lee & Johnson, 1991; Von Hippel et al., 2000). Given that the

current research also shows that temporaries preferring temporary work had similar

contextual performance as permanents, these findings reiterate the importance of

understanding what drives temporaries to prefer temporary work so as to predict their

work outcomes.

Present findings suggest that job future uncertainty appears to be but one factor

temporaries consider when determining their job status preferences. For if job future

uncertainty was the only consideration made then you might expect a high

correspondence between preference for permanent work and job insecurity. The

correlation between these two variables in the current research was however non-

significant. Overall, these findings add support to the view that both voluntary and

involuntary reasons contribute to temporaries’ preferences for temporary work.

Moreover, job insecurity was differentially important to temporaries as a function of

their motivation to work in temporary jobs.

The other aspect of control that moderated reactions to job insecurity jointly with

temporary job status was employability. Several interesting conclusions can be made

concerning the role of employability. Part of the new psychological contract

241

between employer and employee is the promotion of employability, whereby both

are responsible for maintaining the employment situation (Kluytmans & Ott, 1999).

Rather than organisations managing employees’ careers through job security and

promotions, employees now are supposed to exercise greater responsibility for their

own career development (Caudron, 1994; DeFillippi & Arthur, 1996; Mallon &

Duberley, 2000; Mirvis & Hall, 1996). Temporary work can represent therefore, a

new form of entrepreneurship whereby the individual markets their own human

capital portfolio amongst various employers (Carnoy et al., 1997). Such temporaries

might therefore want to be independent and have very little interest in job security

offered by organisations. For them, job continuity is realised through marketing their

own employability.

As noted previously, Kunda et al. (2002) argues that job security for temporaries is

perhaps not about keeping a job, but how effortlessly another job can be found. It

was therefore hypothesized that temporaries would have higher employability than

permanents. Contrary to predictions, temporaries had similar levels of employability

to permanents. This finding is difficult to explain given that no studies could be

found that have tested such a hypothesis and thus is a suggested area for future

research. Perhaps the nature of the job (low to medium level non-academic

positions) or the finding that the both temporaries and permanents had similar

educational backgrounds contributed to the lack of support for this hypothesis.

More interesting though was the finding that the association between job insecurity

and employability differed for temporaries and permanents. Two findings contribute

to such a conclusion. First, for temporaries, job insecurity and employability were

uncorrelated. A plausible explanation for this lack of association is that temporaries

make a distinction between their job security, having a job in a particular

organisation, and their employment security, having any job in any organisation. For

permanents though, job insecurity and employability were strongly negatively

associated. This correspondence suggests that if a permanent has a strong belief that

their current job will not last, then they are also likely to believe their likelihood of

gaining alternate work is also low. In other words, these results suggest that some

permanents have difficulty in distinguishing between job security and employment

security. Second, for permanents employability had no effect on either their job

242

satisfaction or affective commitment. For temporaries though, employability did

have significant influence. Temporaries had higher job satisfaction and affective

commitment when they were least confident about their employability. It appears

that these temporaries highly “valued” their jobs, since a substitute job was

considered to be difficult to obtain.

To explain these findings further consider how a highly employable temporary might

view their temporary job. An entrepreneurial temporary, one with a belief that

alternate employment opportunities abound, is likely to be more discerning about

their job assignments, since many exist to choose from, thereby making the

temporary more difficult to satisfy. As well, an entrepreneurial temporary might

view any job as but one in a career of job assignments, and as such would be less

inclined to emotionally attach themselves to one particular organisation. For them,

changing employment is about opportunities, not anxieties.

Such a conclusion is consistent with the free agent perspective of temporary work.

Temporary status, according to Kunda et al. (2002) is a choice rather than a

necessity, releasing people from the confines of organisations enabling the

development of marketable skills. Given that, as previously discussed, skill

enhancement is viewed as a reason why employees might choose temporary work,

then it might be expected that highly employable temporaries are likely to prefer

temporary work over permanent work. If that is the situation, then you would expect

a high correspondence between preference for permanent work and employability.

The correlation between these two variables for temporaries in the current research

was however non-significant. This finding adds indirect support to the argument that

individuals might choose temporary work based on both voluntary reasons and

involuntary reasons (Ellingson et al., 1998; Peiró et al., 2002; Tan & Tan, 2002; Von

Hippel et al., 2000), since the opportunity to gain marketability skills alone does not

explain individual preferences for temporary work.

Lastly, significant moderator results were also found for temporary job status and

social support. The role of social support was investigated to see how it influenced

employee reactions to the adverse effects of job insecurity. Given that work-related

sources of support are generally considered to be most important in alleviating

243

occupational stress (LaRocco, House & French, 1980), the influence of social

support internal to the organisation, from supervisors and work colleagues, was

examined.

Adding to the literature (Lim, 1996; Rogers, 1995; Sverke et al., 2000) it was not

unexpected to find that the availability of social support from supervisors and work

colleagues had a critical role in how temporaries reacted to job insecurity.

Specifically, the negative effects of job insecurity were alleviated for temporaries

with high social support from organisational members, such that their contextual

performance was marginally higher than that of permanents. Organisational social

support is argued to be more important for temporaries than other benefits, since

temporaries are in interactionally detached positions (Garsten, 1999; Rogers, 1995).

Temporaries generally do not have long to learn and adapt to their jobs. Information

seeking from permanent organisational members can reduce uncertainty about job

requirements. If that information is difficult to obtain, impaired job performance

may result. Time spent attempting to gather information is time not spent on job

performance. Overcoming the problem of social integration in the workplace may be

an important challenge for managers, and these findings suggest that encouraging

strong workplace social support will be rewarded with an increase in contextual

performance activities.

Strengths and limitations

A number of limitations in these studies are noted. First, the nature of the sample did

not present ideal conditions for generalizing the results of the research. For example,

the sample was gender biased, being mostly female (86 per cent of the sample).

Research has shown that males and females are concerned with different aspects of

their job security. For instance, males are known to show more concern about the

financial aspects of their jobs, whereas females are more anxious about changes to

work autonomy (Rosenblatt et al., 1999). The female bias of the sample could

perhaps explain why tests of the moderator effects of job dependency were

unsuccessful. Also, as reported in Chapter 6, none of the moderators tested showed

significant results for effects on psychological well-being. Research (Ferrie et al.,

244

1995) suggests that the experience of job insecurity is less distressing for (most)

women compared to men. The high percentage of females who participated in this

research therefore makes it difficult to generalize the results to men.

Furthermore, universities as public sector organisations have very different cultures

than many private sector enterprises and therefore the sample cannot be regarded as a

representative one. As well, due to the voluntary nature of the study, it is possible

that the majority of the participants may not have been those employees that were

most at risk of job threats. Rather, it is possible that some non-respondents could ill-

afford the time or effort to complete the questionnaires due to high job future

uncertainty. The highly job insecure therefore, may be underrepresented in the

current research. Broader sampling across types of organisations and in other

industries is needed to establish how generalizable the current findings are.

Another limitation concerns the use of self-reported questionnaires as the data

collection tool as there may be concerns about common method variance. Thus, the

findings are offered as exploratory and consequently should be interpreted

cautiously. Attempts to minimize this problem were made by using reversed scale

items. As well, a social desirability bias (Nunnally, 1978) can be present in

responses to items regarding work attitudes and performance. These two problems

though, are partly addressed by the guaranteed confidentiality and anonymity of

responses to participants.

These limitations though, are accompanied by a number of strengths that should be

noted. One strength of the current research is its use of a longitudinal design, which

in comparison with cross-sectional designs is better suited for testing assumptions of

causality. It is acknowledged that causality requires that not only do variables need

to covary over time, but these variables also need to be isolated from other potential

variables of influence (Frese & Zapf, 1988). Thus, although a number of variables

were controlled for, the relationships between job insecurity and its consequences

may be affected by other factors, such as union membership (Sverke & Hellgren,

2001), or justice perceptions (Brockner, Grover & Blonder, 1988). Nevertheless,

these findings at least demonstrate that the assumption of a causal effect of job

insecurity is plausible.

245

A number of job insecurity researchers undertake studies in organisations undergoing

organisational restructuring or following financial crises (e.g., Armstrong-Stassen et

al., 1994, Dekker & Schaufeli, 1995; Mak & Mueller, 2001) to demonstrate the

negative effects of job insecurity. No such objective job threats existed in the

research settings in the current project. Therefore, another strength of the current

research is that it contributes to the growing body of research (e.g., De Witte, 1999;

Klandermans & Van Vuuren, 1999; O’Quin & LoTempio, 1998) that suggests that

job insecurity can develop and have adverse effects on employees even when there is

no direct threat to their job situation or their organisation.

Theoretical and practical implications

There are a variety of theoretical, methodological, and practical implications of this

research. This dissertation makes a significant contribution to how job insecurity is

conceptualized and measured. Chapter 2 argued that a sense of powerlessness with

respect to job insecurity can be linked to both the probability of job loss and to the

level of severity of that loss. Greenhalgh and Rosenblatt (1984) alternately view

powerlessness as a multiplicative factor of job insecurity. This dissertation proposed

that including powerlessness into the conceptualization of job insecurity as a single

construct does not adequately reflect the complexity of the job insecurity.

Based on the current findings, it is suggested that job insecurity perceptions be

conceptualized in expectancy theory (Vroom, 1964) terms, as Jacobson (1991)

suggests. Vroom defines expectancy as a momentary belief about the probability

that a particular act will be followed by a particular outcome. Thus, a highly

insecure employee would indicate that there is a high probability that a job will not

be retained for as long as it is desired. Such an expectation captures both individual

interpretations about environmental cues regarding job continuity as well as how

much job retention is desired. But such an expectation alone says nothing about how

important (or not) job continuity might be to the individual.

246

The seriousness of an unexpected or undesired job loss relates to the value the

individual places on having a particular job. In Vroom’s terms, valence concerns the

affective orientation a person has toward a particular outcome. Thus, if retaining

their job is highly sought after, an employee would assign a high valence to that

outcome. If however, the retention of a particular job is not so valued, the employee

would assign a low valence to that outcome. Thus the consequences of job loss must

be very serious for an individual to assign a high valence to a job loss outcome.

Vroom argues that expectancy and valence combine multiplicatively to determine

motivation or force. Thus, unless both valence and expectancy are present to some

degree, there will be no force. In terms of job insecurity then, not only must the

likelihood of job loss be strong but the importance of retaining that job must also be

strong. If either the likelihood of job loss is low or the desire to retain the job is low,

then no or very little job insecurity develops.

The current research proposed and investigated a number of individual differences

that were expected to differentiate between those employees who found job loss a

serious consequence and those who did not. These individual differences then were

tested for interactive effects with job insecurity (i.e., expectations of the probability

of job loss). To test for interactive effects, variables are multiplied together, just as

Vroom suggests combining both the expectations of the employee with the

instrumentality (valence) with which they attach to that expectancy. By

conceptualizing the valence with which an employee assigns their job loss

probability as an individual difference, this approach allows examination of any

potential differential effects of variations in those individual differences. This

conclusion fits well with the recommendations of Kinnunen et al. (1999) who

concluded that their job loss probability scale showed the best construct validity

longitudinally, and the importance scale acted as a separate construct from the other

scales (global, probability, and powerlessness) tested.

From a methodological perspective, some approaches to the measurement of job

insecurity cannot be readily applied to understanding temporaries’ reactions to job

insecurity. First, for researchers such as Pearce (1998) and Büssing (1999)

temporary work implies job insecurity in that it is considered as an objective

247

operationalization of job insecurity. Such a view is not without some foundation

since studies show that temporary employees are more uncertain about the future of

their job (e.g., Klein Hesselink & Van Vuuren, 1999; Sverke et al., 2000). Yet the

current findings showed that temporaries and permanents had similar levels of job

insecurity. Both De Witte and Näswall (2003) and Klandermans and Van Vuuren

(1999) similarly show that operationalizing temporary work status as a measure of

job insecurity does not provide the same results as assessing job insecurity

subjectively. Based on the current findings therefore, it is recommended that

findings from studies using temporary job status as a proxy measure of high job

insecurity be accepted with caution.

Another way of operationalizing job insecurity involves making a distinction

between ‘quantitative’ and ‘qualitative’ job insecurity (e.g., Hellgren et al., 1999).

Quantitative job insecurity relates to the retention (or loss) of the job itself.

Employees are uncertain about whether they will be able to keep the job or become

unemployed. Qualitative job insecurity concerns uncertainty about the potential loss

of (valued) aspects of the jobs, such as wages, working hours or the job content. For

those in temporary employment though, continuation of the job itself is of primary

importance, rather than the future quality of the job (De Witte & Näswall, 2003).

Thus assessing the importance of job features or whether transfer or demotion is

likely, as argued by Ashford et al. (1989), may not be very applicable for those in

temporary work arrangements. Thus, restricting the measurement of job insecurity to

just an assessment of the likelihood of job loss has further advantages for those

researchers using samples with temporary employees, apart from the considerable

value with respect to the measurement issue of parsimony.

From a practical standpoint, this research’s findings combined with the growing

body of work on temporary employment suggest that organisations need to develop

guidelines for how to manage temporary employees. The current research suggests

that managers should try to differentiate between those temporaries that prefer

temporary work and those who prefer permanent work. For managers it is important

not to simply stereotype temporaries as unmotivated. Temporary workers are far

from a homogenous group. Managers should provide temporaries with realistic

expectations regarding the length of their job assignment, however unpleasant. It is

248

likely that some temporaries do so by choice as a way of taking some risks with the

expectation of improving their careers (Rodriguez, 2002). Others might have little

choice. By reducing or attempting to reduce job future uncertainty for temporary

workers, organisations will be more likely to create a workforce of satisfied and

committed temporary employees. Current findings show that such a strategy would

be beneficial to both the temporary and the organisation.

Information on employee embeddedness may be useful for managers in helping to

reduce turnover intentions and subsequent turnover. To increase employee

embeddedness, managers can assign employees to work teams or committees, thus

creating more organisational links. Encouraging supportive workplace behaviour as

well would improve the quality of those links. Awareness of job embeddedness may

be helpful to managers trying to manage employee retention by drawing attention to

work factors that make the workplace more attractive to the needs and interests of

employees, thereby making it harder to leave.

Finally, another contribution of this dissertation concerns thinking about job

insecurity in terms of voluntary turnover decisions. Job insecurity, when measured

as a job loss probability, involves voluntary turnover decisions since secure

employees think they can retain their jobs for as long as they desire. So, no matter

how strong the probability of job loss, if the desire to retain a job is not high, the

employee should feel in control of any turnover decisions. Job embeddedness, an

organisational attachment construct, in the voluntary turnover literature was tested as

a moderator of job insecurity – a previously untested relationship. Being embedded

in an organisation was found to be negatively related to turnover intentions.

Furthermore, findings from study two suggest that in its present form the links

subscale needs to be expanded to include quality aspects of organisational links,

together with the quantity aspects of this variable.

Directions for future research

More research assessing job insecurity is needed, in particular using samples of

temporary workers. An expanding proportion of the workforce is moving into

249

temporary work (Bergström, 2001; Brewster & Mayne, 1997; Hall, 2000). The

evidence presented in this dissertation shows that temporaries are not immune to the

effects of job insecurity. Future researchers should compare specific categories of

temporary workers such as professional and non-professional temporary workers,

and private and public sectors temporary workers. As the number of people moving

into non-standard working arrangements increases, it becomes both more feasible

and important to study other categories of temporary workers such as contract

workers in different occupational and industrial sectors. The existence of gender

differences also needs to be explored.

Since embeddedness is a causal indicator construct, the effects of time on the

relationships between job embeddedness, job insecurity and work outcomes need to

be investigated. Longitudinal research might also assess whether embeddedness

increases with time. Further examination of these relationships needs to be

replicated with diverse samples, which include temporary employees, to test the

external validity of the current findings.

Support for the proposed models provided corroboration of previous research in the

area. Further conceptual development and empirical testing is needed though.

Additional theoretically and conceptually meaningful antecedents of job insecurity

need to be identified. Even though the current research found significant predictors,

only a portion of the variance of job insecurity was accounted for. One suggested

line of research might be to investigate the influence of self-esteem, since when

environmental conditions are poor (such as highly threatening), low self-esteem

individuals suffer more than their high self-esteem counterparts (Pierce, Gardner,

Dunham & Cummings, 1993).

Additionally, future research might consider the role of other work-related stressors,

such as role ambiguity or role conflict, with an aim to better understanding the

mechanisms that might intensify the distress caused by high job insecurity. These

variables might also be particularly relevant to temporary employees, given the

frequency with which they change job assignments.

250

To conclude, in this research a systematic approach was taken to provide an

empirical analysis of the job attitudes and work outcomes of university workers. To

the degree that the expectation of lifetime employment in a single organisation is

diminishing for a majority of workers, the importance of understanding how job

insecurity perceptions impact on individuals is growing. Understanding what may

compound or ameliorate any adverse effects on employees therefore is increasingly

important. This dissertation provides a foundation on which more complex

relationships among job insecurity and its moderators can be examined.

251

References

Abraham, K. G. (1990). Restructuring the employment relationship: The growth of market-mediated work arrangements. In K. G. Abraham & R. B. McKersie (Eds.), New Developments in the Labor Market: Toward a new institutional paradigm (pp. 85-118). Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.

Abramis, D. J. (1994). Relationship of job stressors to job performance: Linear or an inverted-U? Psychological Reports, 75(1 (Part 2)), 547-558.

ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics). (1998). Forms of Employment, Australia. Catalogue Number 6359.0(August 1998).

ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics). (1998). Part-time, casual and temporary employment. Catalogue Number 6247.1(October 1997).

ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics). (1998). Weekly earnings of employees (Distribution), Australia. Catalogue Number 6310.0(August 1988).

ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics). (1999). Casual employment (July, 1999). Labour Force, Australia, Catalogue Number 6203.0, 1-6.

Adams, J. S. (1963). Toward an understanding of inequity. Journal of abnormal social psychology, 67, 422-436.

Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 267-299). New York, NY: Academic Press.

Adkins, C. L., Werbel, J. D., & Farh, J.-L. (2001). A field study of job insecurity during a financial crisis. Group & Organization Management, 26(4), 463-483.

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple Regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, NJ: Sage Publications.

Algren, M. E. (1997). An investigation of the communication processes used by temporary employees to achieve assignment success and job satisfaction. Unpublished Ph. D., Kent State University.

Allan, C., Brosnan, P., & Walsh, P. (1998). Non-standard working-time arrangements in Australia and New Zealand. International Journal of Manpower, 19(4), 234-249.

Allan, P., & Sienko, S. (1997). A comparison of contingent and core workers' perceptions of their jobs' characterisitics and motivational properties. S.A.M. Advanced Management Journal, 62(3), 4-9.

Allen, J., & Henry, N. (1997). Ulrich Beck's Risk society at work: Labour and employment in the contract service industries. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 22(2), 180-196.

Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63(1), 1-18.

Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1996). Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization: An examination of construct validity. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 49, 252-276.

Allen, T. D., Freeman, D. M., Russell, J. E. A., Reizenstein, R. C., & Rentz, J. O. (2001). Survivor reactions to organizational downsizing: Does time ease the pain? Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74, 145-164.

252

Alnajjar, A. A. (1996). Relationship between job satisfaction and organizational commitment among employees in the United Arab Emirates. Psychological Reports, 79(1), 315-321.

Ameen, E. C., Jackson, C., Pasewark, W. R., & Strawser, J. R. (1995). An empirical investigation of the antecedents and consequences of job insecurity on the turnover intentions of academic accountants. Issues in Accounting Education, 10(1), 65-82.

Appelbaum, E. (1992). Structural change and the growth of part-time and temporary employment. In V. L. duRivage (Ed.), New Policies for the Part-time and Contingent Workforce (pp. 1-14). Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.

Arber, S. (1997). Comparing inequalities in women's and men's health : Britain in the 1990s. Social Science & Medicine, 44(6), 773-787.

Armstrong-Stassen, M. (1993). Production workers' reactions to a plant closing: The role of transfer, stress, and support. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 6, 201-214.

Armstrong-Stassen, M., Horsburgh, M. E., & Cameron, S. J. (1994, 14-17 August). The reactions of full-time and part-time nurses to restructuring in the Canadian health care system. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Best Paper Proceedings 1994, Dallas, Texas.

Arnold, H. J., & Feldman, D. C. (1982). A multivariate analysis of the determinants of job turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67(3), 350-360.

Aronsson, G. (1999). Contingent workers and health and safety. Work, Employment and Society, 13(3), 439-459.

Aronsson, G., & Göransson, S. (1999). Permanent employment but not in a preferred occupation: Psychological and medical aspects, research implications. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 4(2), 152-163.

Arthur, M. B., & Rousseau, D. M. (1996). Introduction: The boundaryless career as a new employment principle. In M. B. Arthur & D. M. Rousseau (Eds.), The Boundaryless Career: A new employment principle for a new organizational era (pp. 3-20). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Ashford, S. J., Lee, C., & Bobko, P. (1989). Content, causes, and consequences of job insecurity: a theory-based measure and substantive test. Academy of Management Journal, 32(4), 803-829.

Atkinson, J. S. (1987). Flexibility or fragmentation? The United Kingdom labour market in the eighties. Labour and Society, 12(1), 87-105.

Auer, P., & Cazes, S. (2000). The resilience of the long-term employment relationship: Evidence from the industrialized countries. International Labour Review, 139(4), 393-407.

Austen, S. (1995). The growth in part-time employment: Implications for training policy. Perth, WA: Curtin University of Technology.

Austin, W., McGinn, N. C., & Susmilch, C. (1980). Internal standards revisited: Effects of social comparisons and expectancies on judgements of fairness and satisfaction. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 16, 426-441.

Australian Centre for Industrial Relations Research and Training. (1999). Australia at work: Just managing? Sydney, NSW: Prentice Hall.

Banks, M. H., Clegg, C. W., Jackson, P. R., Kemp, N. J., Stafford, E. M., & Wall, T. D. (1980). The use of the General Health Questionnaire as an indicator of mental health in occupational studies. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 53, 187-194.

Bargal, D., Back, A., & Ariav, P. (1992). Occupational social work and prolonged job insecurity in a declining organization. Administration in Social Work, 16(1), 55-67.

Barker, K. (1993). Changing assumptions and contingent solutions: The costs and benefits of wormen working full- and part-time. Sex Roles, 28(1/2), 47-71.

253

Barling, J., & Gallagher, D. G. (1996). Part-time employment. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (Vol. 11, pp. 243-277). Brisbane: John Wiley & Sons.

Barling, J. & Kelloway, E. K. 1996. Job insecurity and health: The moderating role of workplace control. Stress Medicine, 12(4): 253-259.

Bauman, Z. (1993). Postmodern ethics. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Beard, K. M., & Edwards, J. R. (1995). Employees at risk: Contingent work and the

psychological experience of contingent workers. In C. L. Cooper & D. M. Rousseau (Eds.), Trends in Organizational Behavior (Vol. 2, pp. 109-126). Brisbane: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Beehr, T. A. (1995). Psychological stress in the workplace. New York: Routledge. Beehr, T. (1998). An organizational psychology meta-model of occupational stress. In C. L.

Cooper (Ed.), Theories of organizational stress (pp. 6-27). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Beehr, T. A., & Newman, J. E. (1978). Job stress, employee health, and organizational effectiveness: A facet analysis, model, and literature review. Personnel Psychology, 31, 665-698.

Bem, D. J. (1972). Self-perception theory. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 16, pp. 1-62). New York, NY: Adademic Press.

Bennis, W. G., & Slater, P. E. (1968). The temporary society. New York: Harper & Row. Benson, J. (1998). Dual commitment: Contract workers in Australian manufacturing

enterprises. The Journal of Management Studies, 35(3), 355-375. Berger, C. R. (1979). Beyond initial interaction: Uncertainty, understanding, and the

development of interpersonal relationships. In H. Giles & R. N. St. Clair (Eds.), Language and social psychology (pp. 122-144). Baltimore: University Park Press.

Bergström, O. (2001). Externalization of employees: Thinking about going somewhere else. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 12(3), 373-388.

Bian, Y., & Ang, S. (1997). Guanxi networks and job mobility in China and Singapore. Social Forces, 75(3), 981-1005.

Biddle, B. J. (1979). Role theory: Expectations, identities, and behaviors. New York: Academic Press.

Bishop, J. W., Goldsby, M. G., & Neck, C. P. (2002). Who goes? Who cares? Who stays? Who wants to? The role of contingent workers and corporate layoff practices. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 17(4), 298-315.

Bjarnason, T., & Sigurdardottir, T. J. (2003). Psychological distress during unemployment and beyond: Social support and material deprivation among youth in six northern European countries. Social Science & Medicine, 56(5), 973-985.

Blau, G. (1994). Testing a two-dimensional measure of job search behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 59(2), 288-312.

Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. Sydney, NSW: John Wiley & Sons. Bluestone, B., & Bluestone, I. (1992). Negotiating the future: A labor perspective on

American business. New York, NY: Basic Books. Borg, I., & Elizur, D. (1992). Job insecurity: Correlates, moderators and measurement.

International Journal of Manpower, 13(2), 13-26. Borg, V., Kristensen, T. S., & Burr, H. (2000). Work environment and changes in self-rated

health: A five year follow-up study. Stress Medicine, 16(1), 37-47. Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1993). Expanding the criterion domain to include

elements of contextual performance. In N. Schmitt & W. C. Borman (Eds.), Personnel Selection in Organizations (pp. 71-98). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

254

Brett, J. F., Cron, W. L., & Slocum Jr., J. W. (1995). Economic dependency on work: A moderator of the relationship between organizational commitment and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 261-271.

Brewster, C., & Mayne, L. (1997). Flexible working in Europe. Journal of World Business, 32(2), 133-151.

Brief, A. P., & Aldag, R. J. (1989). The economic functions of work. In G. R. Ferris & K. M. Rowland (Eds.), Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management (Vol. 7, pp. 1-23). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Brief, A. P., Burke, M. J., George, J. M., Robinson, B. S., & Webster, J. (1988). Should negative affectivity remain an unmeasured variable in the study of job stress? Journal of Applied Psychology, 73(2), 193-198.

Brockner, J., Grover, S. L., & Blonder, M. D. (1988). Predictors of survivors’ job involvement following layoffs: A field study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 3, 436-442.

Brockner, J., Grover, S., Reed, T. F., & Dewitt, R. L. (1992). Layoffs, job insecurity, and survivors' work effort: Evidence of an inverted-U relationship. Academy of Management Journal, 35(2), 413-425.

Brooks, B. (1985). Aspects of casual and part-time employment. The Journal of Industrial Relations, 27(2), 158-171.

Brown Johnson, N., Bobko, P., & Hartenian, L. S. (1992). Union influence on local union leaders' perceptions of job insecurity: An empirical test. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 30(1), 45-60.

Brown, R. K. (1997). Flexibility and security: Contradictions in the contemporary labour market. In R. K. Brown (Ed.), The Changing Shape of Work (pp. 69-86). London, UK: MacMillan Press Ltd.

Burchell, B. J. (1994). The effects of labour market position, job insecurity, and unemployment on psychological health. In D. Gallie, C. March & C. Vogler (Eds.), Social Change and the Experience of Unemployment (pp. 188-212). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Burchell, B. J. (2002). The prevalence and redistribution of job insecurity and work intensification. In B. J. Burchell, D. Ladipo & F. Wilkinson (Eds.), Job Insecurity and Work Intensification (pp. 61-76). London: Routledge.

Burgess, J. (1996). Workforce casualisation in Australia. International Employment Relations Review, 2(1), 33-53.

Burgess, J., & Campbell, I. (1998). Casual employment in Australia: Growth characteristics, a bridge or a trap? The Economic and Labour Relations Review, 9(1), 31-54.

Burke, R. J. (1998). Correlates of job insecurity among recent business school graduates. Employee Relations, 20(1), 92-98.

Burke, R. J. (1998). Job insecurity in recent business school graduates: Antecedents and consequences. International Journal of Stress Management, 5(2), 113-119.

Burke, R. J., & Greenglass, E. R. (2000). Work status congruence, work outcomes and psychological well-being. Stress Medicine, 16, 91-99.

Büssing, A. (1986). Worker responses to job insecurity: A quasi-experimental field investigation. In G. Debus & H.-W. Schroiff (Eds.), The Psychology of Work and Organization: Current trends and issues - selected and edited proceedings of the West European Conference on the Psychology of Work and Organization, Aachen, F.R.G., 1-3 April, 1985 (pp. 137-144). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. (North-Holland).

255

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.

Cable, D. M., & Judge, T. A. (1996). Person-organization fit, job choice decision, and organizational entry. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67(3), 294-311.

Campbell, I. (1997). Beyond unemployment: The challenge of increased precarious employment. Just Policy: A journal of Australian social policy, 11, 4-20.

Caplan, R. D., Cobb, S., French Jr., J. R. P., Van Harrison, R., & Pinneau, S. R. (1975). Job demands and worker health: Main effects and occupational differences (pp. 75-160). Washington, DC: National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.

Cappelli, P. (1995). Rethinking employment. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 33(4), 563-602.

Cappelli, P., & Sherer, P. D. (1990). Assessing worker attitudes under a two-tier wage plan. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 43(2), 225-244.

Carey, M. L., & Hazelbaker, K. L. (1986). Employment growth in the temporary help industry. Monthly Labor Review, 109(4), 37-44.

Carnoy, M., Castells, M., & Benner, C. (1997). Labour markets and employment practices in the age of flexibility: A case study of Silicon Valley. International Labour Review, 136(1), 27-48.

Carré, F. J. (1992). Temporary employment in the eighties. In V. L. duRivage (Ed.), New Policies for the Part-time and Contingent Workforce (pp. 45-87). Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.

Carrell, M. R., & Dittrich, J. E. (1978). Equity Theory: The recent literature, methodological considerations, and new directions. Academy of Management Review, 3, 202-210.

Catalano, R., Rook, K., & Dooley, D. (1986). Labor markets and help-seeking: A test of the employment security hypothesis. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 27, 277-287.

Caudron, S. (1994). Contingent work force spurs HR planning. Personnel Journal, 73(7), 52-60.

Cavanaugh, M. A., & Noe, R. A. (1999). Antecedents and consequences of relational components of the new psychological contract. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 323-340.

Champoux, J. E., & Peters, W. S. (1987). Form, effect size and power in moderated regression analysis. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 60(3), 243-255.

Chaplin, W. F. (1991). The next generation of moderator research in personality psychology. Journal of Personality, 59(2), 143-178.

Chen, P. Y., Popovich, P. M., & Kogan, M. (1999). Let's talk: Patterns and correlates of social support among temporary employees. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 4(1), 55-62.

Chew, I. K. H., & Putti, J. (1995). Relationship on work-related values of Singaporean and Japanese managers in Singapore. Human Relations, 48(10), 1149-1170.

Chirumbolo, A., & Hellgren, J. (2003). Individual and organizational consequences of job insecurity: A European study. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 24(2), 217-240.

Christensen, K. (1987). Women and contingent work. Social Policy, 17(4), 15-18. Clugston, M., Howell, J. P., & Dorfman, P. W. (2000). Does cultural socialization predict

multiple bases and foci of commitment? Journal of Management, 26(1), 5-30. Cobb, S. (1979). Social support and health through the life course. In M. W. Riley (Ed.),

Aging from birth to death : Interdisciplinary perspectives (pp. 93-106). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

256

Cohany, S. R. (1996). Workers in alternative employment arrangements. Monthly Labor Review, 119(10), 31-45.

Cohany, S. R. (1998). Workers in alternative employment arrangements: A second look. Monthly Labor Review, 121(11), 3-39.

Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioural sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Cohen, S., & Wills, T. A. (1985). Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 98(2), 310-357.

Cohen, Y., & Haberfeld, Y. (1993). Temporary help service workers: Employment characteristics and wage determination. Industrial Relations, 32(2), 272-287.

Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design & analysis issues for field settings. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Cook, T. D., Crosby, F., & Hennigan, K. M. (1977). The construct validity of relative deprivation. In J. M. Suls & R. L. Miller (Eds.), Social comparison processes: Theoretical and empirical perspectives. Washington, D.C.: Hemisphere Pub. Corp.

Coyle-Shapiro, J. A.-M., & Kessler, I. (2002). Contingent and non-contingent working in local government: Contrasting psychological contracts. Public Administration, 80(1), 77-101.

Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297-334.

Culpepper, R. A. (2000). A test of revised scales for the Meyer and Allen (1991) three-component commitment construct. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60(4), 604-616.

Dacin, M. T., Ventresca, M. J., & Beal, B. D. (1999). The embeddedness of organizations: Dialogue and directions. Journal of Management, 25(3), 317-356.

Dale, A., & Bamford, C. (1988). Temporary workers: Cause for concern or complacency? Work, Employment and Society, 2(2), 191-209.

Daniels, K., & Guppy, A. (1994). Occupational stress, social support, job control, and psychological well-being. Human Relations, 47(12), 1523-1544.

Darden, W. R., McKee, D., & Hampton, R. (1993). Salesperson employment status as a moderator in the job satisfaction model: A frame of reference perspective. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 13(3), 1-15.

Davis-Blake, A., & Uzzi, B. (1993). Determinants of employment externalization: A study of temporary workers and independent contractors. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38(2), 195-224.

Davy, J. A., Kinicki, A. J., & Scheck, C. L. (1991). Developing and testing a model of survivor responses to layoffs. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 38(3), 302-317.

Davy, J. A., Kinicki, A. J., & Scheck, C. L. (1997). A test of job security's direct and mediated effects on withdrawal cognitions. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18(4), 323-349.

Dawkins, P., & Norris, K. (1987). Casual employment in Australia. Perth, WA: Murdoch University.

De Jonge, J., Bosma, H., Peter, R., & Siegrist, J. (2000). Job strain, effort-reward imbalance and employee well-being: A large-scale cross-sectional study. Social Science & Medicine, 50(9), 1317-1327.

De Meuse, K. P., Bergmann, T. J., & Lester, S. W. (2001). An investigation of the relational component of the psychological contract across time, generation, and employment status. Journal of Managerial Issues, 13(1), 102-118.

De Ruyter, A., & Burgess, J. (2000). Job security in Australia: Broadening the analysis. Australian Journal of Social Issues, 35(3), 215-234.

257

De Witte, H. (1999). Job insecurity and psychological well-being: Review of the literature and exploration of some unresolved issues. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8(2), 155-177.

De Witte, H., & Näswall, K. (2003). 'Objective' vs 'subjective' job insecurity: Consequences of temporary work for job satisfaction and organizational commitment in four European countries. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 24(2), 149-188.

Deelstra, J. T., Peeters, M. C. W., Schaufeli, W. B., Stroebe, W., & Zijlstra, F. R. H. (2003). Receiving instrumental support at work: When help is not welcome. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(2), 324-331.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1987). The support of autonomy and the control of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(6), 1024-1037.

DeFillippi, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1996). Boundaryless contexts and careers: A competency-based perspective. In M. B. Arthur & D. M. Rousseau (Eds.), The Boundaryless Career: A new employment principle for a new organizational era (pp. 116-131). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Dekker, S. W. A., & Schaufeli, W. B. (1995). The effects of job insecurity on psychological health and withdrawal: A longitudinal study. Australian Psychologist, 30(1), 57-63.

Dex, S., Willis, J., Paterson, R., & Sheppard, E. (2000). Freelance workers and contract uncertainty: The effects of contractual changes in the television industry. Work, Employment and Society, 14(2), 283-305.

Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Lucas, R. E., & Smith, H. L. (1999). Subjective well-being: Three decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin, 125(2), 276-302.

Dooley, D., Rook, K., & Catalano, R. (1987). Job and non-job stressors and their moderators. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 60(2), 115-132.

Doran, L. I., Stone, V. K., Brief, A. P., & George, J. M. (1991). Behavorial intentions as predictors of job attitudes: The role of economic choice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(1), 40-45.

Dua, J. K. (1994). Job stressors and their effects on physical health, emotional health, and job satisfaction in a university. Journal of Educational Administration, 32(1), 59-78.

Dubinsky, A. J., & Skinner, S. J. (1984). Job status and employees' responses: Effects of demographic characteristics. Psychological Reports, 55, 323-328.

Eberhardt, B. J., & Moser, S. B. (1995). The nature and consequences of part-time work: A test of hypotheses. Journal of Applied Business Research, 11(3), 101-108.

Eberhardt, B. J., & Shani, A. B. (1984). The effects of full-time versus part-time employment status on attitudes toward specific organizational characteristics and overall job satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 27(4), 893-900.

Edwards, J. R. (1991). Person-job fit: A conceptual integration, literature review, and methodological critique. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 6, pp. 283-357). Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.

Edwards, J. R. (1996). An examination of competing versions of the person-environment fit approach to stress. Academy of Management Journal, 39(2), 292-339.

Edwards, J. R., Caplan, R. D., & Harrison, R. V. (1998). Person-environment fit theory: Conceptual foundations, empirical evidence, and directions for future research. In C. L. Cooper (Ed.), Theories of organizational stress (pp. 28-67). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Edwards, J. R., & Rothbard, N. P. (1999). Work and family stress and well-being: An examination of person-environment fit in the work and family domains. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 77(2), 85-129.

258

Ellingson, J. E., Gruys, M. L., & Sackett, P. R. (1998). Factors related to the satisfaction and performance of temporary employees. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(6), 913-921.

Elman, C., & O'Rand, A. M. (2002). Perceived job insecurity and entry into work-related education and training among adult workers. Social Science Research, 31(1), 49-76.

Elsass, P. M., & Veiga, J. F. (1997). Job control and job strain: A test of three models. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 2(3), 195-211.

Eysenck, M. W., & Calvo, M. G. (1992). Anxiety and performance: The processing efficiency theory. Cognition and Emotion, 6(6), 409-434.

Farber, H. S. (1999). Alternative and part-time employment arrangements as a response to job loss. Journal of Labor Economics, 17(4), S142-S169.

Farh, J.-L., Earley, P. C., & Lin, S.-C. (1997). Impetus for action: A cultural analysis of justice and organizational citizenship behavior in Chinese society. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 421-444.

Feldman, D. C. (1990). Reconceptualizing the nature and consequences of part-time work. Academy of Management Review, 15(1), 103-112.

Feldman, D. C. (1995). Managing part-time and temporary employment relationships: Individual needs and organizational demands. In M. London (Ed.), Employees, careers, and job creation: Developing growth-oriented human resource strategies and programs (pp. 121-141). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Feldman, D. C., & Doerpinghaus, H. I. (1992a). Missing persons no longer: Managing part-time workers in the '90s. Organizational Dynamics, 21(1), 59-71.

Feldman, D. C., & Doerpinghaus, H. I. (1992b). Patterns of part-time employment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 41, 282-294.

Feldman, D. C., Doerpinghaus, H. I., & Turnley, W. H. (1994). Managing temporary workers: A permanent HRM challenge. Organizational Dynamics, 23(2), 49-63.

Feldman, D. C., Doerpinghaus, H. I., & Turnley, W. H. (1995). Employee reactions to temporary jobs. Journal of Managerial Issues, 7(2), 127-141.

Feldman, D. C., & Klaas, B. S. (1996). Temporary workers: Employee rights and employer responsibilities. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 9(1), 1-21.

Felstead, A., Krahn, H., & Powell, M. (1999). Young and old at risk: Comparative trends in "non-standard" patterns of employment in Canada and the United Kingdom. International Journal of Manpower, 20(5), 277-296.

Ferber, M. A., & Waldfogel, J. (1998). The long-term consequences of nontraditional employment. Monthly Labor Review, 121(5), 3-12.

Ferrie, J. E. (1997). Labour market status, insecurity and health. Journal of Health Psychology, 2(3), 373-397.

Ferrie, J. E., Shipley, M. J., Marmot, M. G., Stansfeld, S. A., & Smith, G. D. (1995). Health effects of anticipation of job change and non-employment. British Medical Journal, 311, 1264-1269.

Ferrie, J. E., Shipley, M. J., Marmot, M. G., Stansfeld, S. A., & Smith, G. D. (1998a). The health effects of major organisational change and job insecurity. Social Science & Medicine, 46(2), 243-254.

Ferrie, J. E., Shipley, M. J., Marmot, M. G., Stansfeld, S. A., & Smith, G. D. (1998b). An uncertain future: The health effects of threats to employment security in white-collar men and women. American Journal of Public Health, 88(7), 1030-1036.

Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117-141. Festinger, L. (1962). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University

Press.

259

Folkman, S. (1984). Personal control and stress and coping processes: A theoretical analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(4), 839-852.

Forde, C. (2001). Temporary arrangements: The activities of employment agencies in the UK. Work, Employment and Society, 15(3), 631-644.

Fortunato, V. J., Jex, S. M., & Heinish, D. A. (1999). An examination of the discriminant validity of the Strain-Free Negative Affectivity scale. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72, 503-522.

Fortunato, V. J., & Stone-Romero, E. F. (1999). Taking the strain out of negative affectivity: Development and initial validation of scores on a strain-free measure of negative affectivity. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 59(1), 77-97.

French Jr., J. R. P., Caplan, R. D., & Harrison, R. V. (1982). The mechanisms of job stress and strain. Brisbane, QLD: John Wiley & Sons.

Frese, M. (1985). Stress at work and psychosomatic complaints: A causal interpretation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70(2), 314-328.

Frese, M. (1989). Theoretical models of control and health. In S. L. Sauter, J. J. Hurrell Jr. & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Job Control and Worker Health (pp. 107-128). Brisbane, QLD: John Wiley & Sons.

Frese, M., & Zapf, D. (1988). Methodogical issues in the study of work stress: Objective vs subjective measurement of work stress and the question of longitudinal studies. In C. L. Cooper & R. Payne (Eds.), Causes, coping and consequences of stress at work (pp. 375-411). Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.

Fryer, D., & McKenna, S. (1987). The laying off of hands - unemployment and the experience of time. In S. Fineman (Ed.), Unemployment: Personal and social consequences (pp. 47-73). London, UK: Tavistock Publications.

Furda, J., & Meijman, T. (1992). Druk en dreiging, sturing of stress. In J. Winnubst & M. Schabracq (Eds.), Handboek Arbeid en Gezondheid Psychologie. Hoofdthema's (pp. 127-144). Utrecht, The Netherlands: Uitgeverij Lemma.

Gallagher, D. G., & McLean Parks, J. (2001). I pledge thee my troth ... contingently: Commitment and the contingent work relationship. Human Resource Management Review, 11(3), 181-208.

Galup, S., Saunders, C., Nelson, R. E., & Cerveny, R. (1997). The use of temporary staff and managers in a local government environment. Communication Research, 24(6), 698-730.

Gannon, M. J. (1974). A profile of the temporary help industry and its workers. Monthly Labor Review, 97(5), 44-49.

Gannon, M. J. (1975). The management of peripheral employees. Personnel Journal, 54, 482-486.

Gannon, M. J. (1984). Preferences of temporary workers: Time, variety, and flexibility. Monthly Labor Review, 107(8), 26-28.

Ganster, D. C., & Fusilier, M. R. (1989). Control in the workplace. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (pp. 235-280). Brisbane, QLD: John Wiley & Sons.

Ganster, D. C., Fusilier, M. R., & Mayes, B. T. (1986). Role of social support in the experience of stress at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(1), 102-110.

Garsten, C. (1999). Betwixt and between: Temporary employees as liminal subjects in flexible organizations. Organization Studies, 20(4), 601-617.

Gatchel, R. J. (1980). Perceived control: A review and evaluation of therapeutic implications. In A. Baum & J. E. Singer (Eds.), Advances in Environmental Psychology (Vol. 2 - Applications of personal control, pp. 1-22). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

260

Geary, J. F. (1992). Employment flexibility and human resource management: The case of three American electronics plants. Work, Employment and Society, 6(2), 251-270.

George, J. M., & Brief, A. P. (1990). The economic instrumentality of work: An examination of the moderating effects of financial requirements and sex on the pay-life satisfaction relationship. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 37, 357-368.

Gilbert, J. A., & Ivancevich, J. M. (1999). A re-examination of organizational commitment. Journal of Social Behavior & Personality, 14(3), 385-396.

Gillespie, N. A., Walsh, M., Winefield, A. H., Dua, J., & Stough, C. (2001). Occupational stress in universities: Staff perceptions of the causes, consequences and moderators of stress. Work & Stress, 15(1), 53-72.

Goldberg, D. (1972). The detection of psychiatric illness by questionnaire. London, UK: Oxford University Press.

Goodman, P. S. (1977). Social comparison processes in organizations. In B. M. Staw & G. R. Salancik (Eds.), New Directions in Organizational Behavior (pp. 97-132). Chicago, Illinois: St. Clair Press.

Gottfried, H. (1992). In the margins: Flexibility as a mode of regulation in the temporary help service industry. Work, Employment and Society, 6(3), 443-460.

Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25, 161-178.

Gowing, M. K., Kraft, J. D., & Quick, J. C. (Eds.). (1998). The new organizational reality: Downsizing, restructuring, and revitalization. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91, 481-510.

Green, F., Felstead, A., & Burchell, B. J. (2000). Job insecurity and the difficulty of regaining employment: An empirical study of unemployment expectations. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 62(Special Issue), 855-883.

Greenberg, J. (1988). Equity and workplace status: A field experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73(4), 606-613.

Greenberger, D. B., & Strasser, S. (1991). The role of situational and dispositional factors in the enhancement of personal control in organizations. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior (Vol. 13, pp. 111-145). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Greenhalgh, L. (1982). Maintaining organizational effectiveness during organizational retrenchment. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 18(2), 155-170.

Greenhalgh, L. (1983a). Managing the job insecurity crisis. Human Resource Management, 22(4), 431-444.

Greenhalgh, L. (1983b). Organizational decline. In S. B. Bacharach (Ed.), Research in the Sociology of Organizations: A research annual (Vol. 2, pp. 231-276). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Greenhalgh, L., & Rosenblatt, Z. (1984). Job insecurity: Toward conceptual clarity. Academy of Management Review, 9(3), 438-448.

Greenhalgh, L., & Sutton, R. I. (1991). Organizational effectiveness and job insecurity. In J. Hartley, D. Jacobson, B. Klandermans & T. Van Vuuren (Eds.), Job Insecurity: Coping with jobs at risk (pp. 151-171). London, UK: Sage Publications.

Griffeth, R. W., Hom, P. W., & Gaertner, S. (2000). A meta-analysis of antecedents and correlates of employee turnover: Update, moderator tests, and research implications for the next millennium. Journal of Management, 26(3), 463-488.

261

Gruder, C. L. (1977). Choice of comparison persons in evaluating oneself. In J. M. Suls & R. L. Miller (Eds.), Social Comparison Processes: Theoretical and empirical perspectives (pp. 21-41). Washington, D.C.: Hemisphere Pub. Corp.

Grzywacz, J. G., & Dooley, D. (2003). "Good jobs" to "bad jobs": Replicated evidence of an employment continuum from two large surveys. Social Science & Medicine, 56(8), 1749-1760.

Hallier, J., & Lyon, P. (1996). Job insecurity and employee commitment: Managers' reactions to the threat and outcomes of redundancy selection. British Journal of Management, 7, 107-123.

Halvorsen, K. (1998). Impact of re-employment on psychological distress among long-term unemployed. Acta Sociologica, 41(3), 227-242.

Harris, M. M., & Greising, L. A. (1998). Contract employment as a full-time career: Implications for HRM/OB constructs. In M. A. Rahim & R. T. Golembiewski (Eds.), Current Topics in Management (Vol. 3, pp. 269-281). Stamford, CT: JAI Press Inc.

Hartley, J., Jacobson, D., Klandermans, B., & Van Vuuren, T. (1991). Job insecurity: Coping with jobs at risk. London, UK: Sage.

Hartley, J. F., & Klandermans, P. G. (1986). Individual and collective responses to job insecurity. In G. Debus & H.-W. Schroiff (Eds.), The Psychology of Work and Organization: Current trends and issues - selected and edited proceedings of the West European Conference on the Psychology of Work and Organization, Aachen, F.R.G., 1-3 April, 1985 (pp. 129-136). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers B. V. (North-Holland).

Hartmann, L., & Patrickson, M. (2000). Externalizing the workforce: Australian trends and issues for HRM. International Journal of Manpower, 21(1), 7-20.

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.

Hellgren, J., & Chirumbolo, A. (2003). Can union support reduce the negative effects of job insecurity on well-being? Economic and Industrial Democracy, 24(2), 271-???

Hellgren, J., & Sverke, M. (2001). Unionized employees' perceptions of role stress and fairness during organizational downsizing: Consequences for job satisfaction, union satisfaction and well-being. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 22(4), 543-567.

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 and well-being. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8(2), 179-195.

Hershey, R. (1972). Effects of anticipated job loss on employee behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 56(3), 273-275.

Hipple, S. (1998). Contingent work: Results from the second survey. Monthly Labor Review, 121(11), 22-53.

Hobfoll, S. E. (1985). Personal and social resources and the ecology of stress resistance. In P. Shaver (Ed.), Self, situations and social behavior (pp. 265-290). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Motivation, leadership, and organization: Do American theories apply abroad? In H. W. Lane & J. J. DiStefano (Eds.), International management behavior (pp. 105-131). Ontario: Nelson Canada.

Holland, J. L. (1992). Making Vocational Choices: A theory of vocational personalities and work environments (2nd ed.). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources Inc.

262

Holtom, B. C. (1999). Organizational attachment among core and contingent workers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.

Hom, P. W. (1979). Effects of job peripherality and personal characteristics on the job satisfaction of part time workers. Academy of Management Journal, 22(3), 551-565.

Hom, P. W., Griffeth, R. W., & Sellaro, C. L. (1984). The validity of Mobley's 1977 model of employee turnover. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 34, 141-174.

Hui, C., Law, K. S., & Chen, Z. X. (1999). A structural equation model of the effects of negative affectivity, leader-member exchange, and perceived job mobility on in-role and extra-role performance: A Chinese case. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 77(1), 3-21.

Hui, C., & Lee, C. (2000). Moderating effects of organization-based self-esteem on organizational uncertainty: Employee response relationships. Journal of Management, 26(2), 215-232.

Hulin, C. L., & Glomb, T. M. (1999). Contingent employees: Individual and organizational considerations. In D. R. Ilgen & E. D. Pulakos (Eds.), The changing nature of performance: Implications for staffing, motivation, and development (pp. 87-118). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Hulin, C. L., Roznowski, M., & Hachiya, D. (1985). Alternative opportunities and withdrawal decisions: Empirical and theoretical discrepancies and an integration. Psychological Bulletin, 97(2), 233-250.

Hunter, L., McGregor, A., MacInnes, J., & Sproull, A. (1993). The 'flexible firm': Strategy and segmentation. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 31(3), 383-407.

Hunter, L. C., & MacInnes, J. (1991). Employers' labour use strategies: Case studies (Department of Employment Research Paper no. 87). London, UK: Department of Employment.

Isaksson, K. S., & Bellagh, K. (2002). Health problems and quitting among female "temps". European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 11(1), 27-45.

Iverson, R. D. (1996). Employee acceptance of organizational change: The role of organizational commitment. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 7(1), 122-149.

Iverson, R. D., & Roy, P. (1994). A causal model of behavioral commitment: Evidence from a study of Australian blue-collar employees. Journal of Management, 20(1), 15-41.

Jaccard, J., Turrisi, R., & Wan, C. K. (1990). Interaction effects in multiple regression. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Jackofsky, E. F., & Peters, L. H. (1987). Part-time versus full-time employment status differences: A replication and extension. Journal of Occupational Behaviour, 8, 1-9.

Jacobson, D. (1991). The conceptual approach to job insecurity. In J. Hartley, D. Jacobson, B. Klandermans & T. Van Vuuren (Eds.), Job insecurity: Coping with jobs at risk (pp. 23-39). London, UK: Sage Publications.

Jacobson, D. (1995). Trends in international business thought and literature: Job insecurity: Emerging social roles of the 90s. The International Executive, 37(3), 303-314.

Jacobson, D., & Hartley, J. (1991). Mapping the context. In J. Hartley, D. Jacobson, B. Klandermans & T. Van Vuuren (Eds.), Job Insecurity: Coping with jobs at risk (pp. 1-22). London, UK: Sage Publications.

Jahoda, M. (1981). Work, employment and unemployment: Values, theories and approaches in social research. American Psychologist, 36, 184-191.

James, L. R., & Brett, J. M. (1984). Mediators, moderators, and tests for mediation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(2), 307-321.

263

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.

Jones, E. E., & Harris, V. A. (1967). The attribution of attitudes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 3, 1-24.

Kahn, R. L. (1981). Work and health. Chichester, NY: John Wiley & Sons. Kalleberg, A. L., Reskin, B. F., & Hudson, K. (2000). Bad jobs in America: Standard and

nonstandard employment relations and job quality in the United States. American Sociological Review, 65(2), 256-278.

Kalleberg, A. L., & Rognes, J. (2000). Employment relations in Norway: Some dimensions and correlates. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 315-335.

Kanfer, R., & Hulin, C. L. (1985). Individual differences in successful job searches following lay-off. Personnel Psychology, 38(4), 835-847.

Kasl, S. V., & Cobb, S. (1970). Blood pressure changes in men undergoing job loss: A preliminary report. Psychosomatic Medicine, 32(1), 19-38.

Kasl, S. V., & Cobb, S. (1982). Variability of stress effects among men experiencing job loss. In L. Goldberger & S. Breznits (Eds.), Handbook of Stress. Theoretical and Clinical Aspects (pp. 445-465). New York: Free Press.

Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Wiley.

Kaufmann, G. M., & Beehr, T. A. (1986). Interactions between job stressors and social support: Some counterintuitive results. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), 522-526.

Keenan, A., & McBain, G. D. M. (1979). Effects of Type A behaviour, intolerance of ambiguity, and locus of control on the relationship between role stress and work-related outcomes. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 52, 277-285.

Kessler, R. C., Turner, J. B., & House, J. S. (1989). Unemployment, reemployment, and emotional functioning in a community sample. American Sociological Review, 54(4), 648-657.

King, J. E. (2000). White-collar reactions to job insecurity and the role of the psychological contract: Implications for Human Resource Management. Human Resource Management, 39(1), 79-92.

Kinnunen, U., Mauno, S., Nätti, J., & Happonen, M. (1999). Perceived job insecurity: A longitudinal study among Finnish employees. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8(2), 243-260.

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, 443-459.

Kinnunen, U., & Nätti, J. (1994). Job insecurity in Finland: Antecedents and consequences. European Work and Organizational Psychologist, 4(3), 297-321.

Kivimäki, M., Vahtera, J., Pentti, J., & Ferrie, J. E. (2000). Factors underlying the effect of organisational downsizing on health of employees: Longitudinal cohort study. British Medical Journal, 320(7240), 971-975.

Klandermans, B., & Van Vuuren, T. (1999). Job insecurity: Introduction. European Work and Organizational Psychology, 8(2), 145-153.

Klandermans, B., Van Vuuren, T., & Jacobson, D. (1991). Employees and job insecurity. In J. Hartley, D. Jacobson, B. Klandermans & T. Van Vuuren (Eds.), Job Insecurity: Coping with jobs at risk (pp. 40-64). London, UK: Sage Publications.

Klein Hesselink, D. J., & Van Vuuren, T. (1999). Job flexibility and job insecurity: The Dutch case. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8(2), 273-293.

264

Kluytmans, F., & Ott, M. (1999). Management of employability in The Netherlands. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8(2), 261-272.

Kozlowski, S. W. J., Chao, G. T., Smith, E. M., & Hedlund, J. (1993). Organizational downsizing: Strategies, interventions, and research implications. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (Vol. 8, pp. 263-332). Brisbane, QLD: John Wiley & Sons.

Kramer, R. M. (1991). Intergroup relations and organizational dilemmas: The role of categorization processes. Research in Organizational Behavior, 13, 191-228.

Krausz, M. (2000). Effects of short-and long-term preference for temporary work upon psychological outcomes. International Journal of Manpower, 21(8), 635-647.

Krausz, M., Brandwein, T., & Fox, S. (1995). Work attitudes and emotional responses of permanent, voluntary, and involuntary temporary-help employees: An exploratory study. Applied Psychology: An international review, 44(3), 217-232.

Krausz, M., Sagie, A., & Bidermann, Y. (2000). Actual and preferred work schedules and scheduling control as determinants of job-related attitudes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 56(1), 1-11.

Kristof, A. L. (1996). Person-organization fit: An integrative review of its conceptualizations, measurement, and implications. Personnel Psychology, 49(1), 1-49.

Kuhnert, K. W., & Palmer, D. R. (1991). Job security, health, and the intrinsic and extrinsic characteristics of work. Group & Organization Studies, 16(2), 178-192.

Kuhnert, K. W., Sims, R. R., & Lahey, M. A. (1989). The relationship between job security and employee health. Group & Organization Studies, 14(4), 399-410.

Kuhnert, K. W., & Vance, R. J. (1992). Job insecurity and moderators of the relation between job insecurity and employee adjustment. In J. C. Quick, L. R. Murphy & J. J. Hurrell Jr. (Eds.), Stress & well-being at work: Assessments and interventions for occupational mental health (pp. 48-63). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Kulik, C. T., & Ambrose, M. L. (1992). Personal and situational determinants of referent choice. Academy of Management Review, 17(2), 212-237.

Kunda, G., Barley, S. R., & Evans, J. (2002). Why do contractors contract? The experience of highly skilled technical professionals in a contingent labor market. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 55(2), 234-261.

Landsbergis, P. A. (1988). Occupational stress among health care workers: A test of the job demands-control model. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 9, 217-239.

Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York, NY: Springer.

LaRocco, J. M., House, J. S., & French Jr., J. R. P. (1980). Social support, occupational stress, and health. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 21(3), 202-218.

Leana, C. R., & Feldman, D. C. (1992). Coping with job loss: How individuals, organizations, and communities respond to layoffs. Sydney, NSW: Maxwell Macmillan International.

Lee, T. W., & Johnson, D. R. (1991). The effects of work schedule and employment status on the organizational commitment and job satisfaction of full versus part time employees. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 38, 208-224.

Lenz, E. A. (1996). Flexible employment: Positive work strategies for the 21st century. Journal of Labor Research, 17(4), 555-566.

Lepak, D. P., & Snell, S. A. (1999). The human resource architecture: Toward a theory of human capital allocation and development. Academy of Management Review, 24(1), 31-48.

265

Levanoni, E., & Sales, C. A. (1990). Differences in job attitudes between full-time and part-time Canadian employees. Journal of Social Psychology, 130(2), 231-237.

Leventhal, H., & Tomarken, A. (1995). Stress and illness: Perspectives from health psychology. In S. V. Kasl & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Research methods in stess and health psychology (pp. 27-55). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

Lim, V. K. G. (1996). Job insecurity and its outcomes: Moderating effects of work-based and nonwork-based social support. Human Relations, 49(2), 171-194.

Logan, N., O'Reilly 111, C. A., & Roberts, K. H. (1973). Job satisfaction among part-time and full-time employees. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 3, 33-41.

Lord, A., & Hartley, J. (1998). Organizational commitment and job insecurity in a changing public service organization. European Work and Organizational Psychology, 7(3), 341-354.

Lowry, D. S., Simon, A., & Kimberley, N. (2002). Toward improved employment relations practices of casual employees in the New South Wales registered clubs industry. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 13(1), 53-70.

Lyons, B. R. (1995). Specific investment, economies of scale, and the make-or-buy decision: A test of transaction cost theory. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 26(3), 431-443.

Macan, T. H., Trusty, M. L., & Trimble, S. K. (1996). Spector's Work Locus of Control Scale: Dimensionality and validity evidence. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 56(2), 349-357.

MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Ahearne, M. (1998). Some possible antecedents and consequences of in-role and extra-role salesperson performance. Journal of Marketing, 62, 87-98.

MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Fetter, R. (1991). Organizational citizenship behavior and objective productivity as determinants of managerial evaluations of salespersons' performance. Organization Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(1), 123-150.

Macran, S., Clarke, L., & Joshi, H. (1996). Women's health: Dimensions and differentials. Social Science & Medicine, 42(9), 1203-1216.

Mak, A. S., & Mueller, J. (2000). Job insecurity, coping resources and personality dispositions in occupational strain. Work & Stress, 14(4), 312-328.

Mak, A. S., & Mueller, J. (2001). Negative affectivity, perceived occupational stress, and health during organisational restructuring: A follow-up study. Psychology and Health, 16, 125-137.

Mallon, M., & Duberley, J. (2000). Managers and professionals in the contingent workforce. Human Resource Management Journal, 10(1), 33-47.

Mangum, G., Mayall, D., & Nelson, K. (1985). The temporary help industry: A response to the dual internal labor market. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 28(4), 599-611.

Manski, C. F., & Straub, J. D. (2000). Worker perceptions of job insecurity in the mid-1990s: Evidence from the survey of economic expectations. Journal of Human Resources, 35(3), 447-479.

March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations. New York, NY: Wiley. Marler, J. H., Barringer, M. W., & Milkovich, G. T. (2002). Boundaryless and traditional

contingent employees: Worlds apart. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(4), 425-453.

Martens, M. F. J., Nijhuis, F. J. N., Boxtel, M. P. J., & Knottnerus, J. A. (1999). Flexible work schedules and mental and physical health. A study of a working population with non-traditional working hours. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 35-46.

266

Martin, J. E., & Peterson, M. M. (1987). Two-tier wage structures: Implications for equity theory. Academy of Management Journal, 30(2), 297-315.

Matthews, M. D., & Weaver, C. N. (1996). Comparison of perceived job security of college professors versus white-collar and blue-collar workers. Psychological Reports, 79(2), 367-370.

Mauno, S., & Kinnunen, U. (1999). Job insecurity and well-being: A longitudinal study among male and female employees in Finland. Community, Work & Family, 2(2), 147-171.

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., Leskinen, E., & Kinnunen, U. (2001). Multi-wave, multi-variable models of job insecurity: Applying different scales in studying the stability of job insecurity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 919-937.

Maurier, W. L., & Northcott, H. C. (2000). Job uncertainty and health status for nurses during restructuring of health care in Alberta. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 22(5), 623-641.

McClelland, G. H., & Judd, C. M. (1993). Statistical difficulties of detecting interactions and moderator effects. Psychological Bulletin, 114(2), 376-390.

McClurg, L. N. (1999). Organisational commitment in the temporary-help service industry. Journal of Applied Management Studies, 8(1), 5-26.

McDonald, D. J., & Makin, P. J. (2000). The psychological contract, organisational commitment and job satisfaction of temporary staff. Leadership & Organizational Development Journal, 21(2), 84-91.

McGregor, A., & Sproull, A. (1991). Employer labour use strategies: Analysis of a national survey. London, UK: Department of Employment.

McLean Parks, J., & Kidder, D. L. (1994). "Till death do us part ...": Changing work relationships in the 1990s. In C. L. Cooper & D. M. Rousseau (Eds.), Trends in Organizational Behavior (pp. 111-136). New York: Wiley.

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.

Mellers, B. A., Schwartz, A., Ho, K., & Ritov, I. (1997). Decision Affect Theory: Emotional reactions to the outcomes of risky options. Psychological Science, 8(6), 423-429.

Mettee, D. R., & Smith, G. (1977). Social comparison and interpersonal attraction. In J. M. Suls & R. L. Miller (Eds.), Social Comparison Processes: Theoretical and empirical perspectives (pp. 69-101). Washington, D.C.: Hemisphere Pub. Corp.

Meyer, J. P., Allen, N. J., & Smith, C. A. (1993). Commitment to organizations and occupations: Extension and test of a three-component conceptualization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(4), 538-551.

Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D. J., Herscovitch, L., & Topolnytsky, L. (2002). Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61(1), 20-52.

Miller, R. L., & Terborg, J. R. (1979). Job attitudes of part-time and full-time employees. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64(4), 380-386.

Milliken, F. J. (1987). Three types of perceived uncertainty about the environment: State, effect, and response uncertainty. Academy of Management Review, 12(1), 133-143.

Millward, L. J., & Brewerton, P. M. (1999). Contractors and their psychological contracts. British Journal of Management, 10(3), 253-274.

267

Millward, L. J., & Hopkins, L. J. (1998). Psychological contracts, organizational and job commitment. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28(16), 1560-1556.

Mirvis, P. H., & Hall, D. T. (1994). Psychological success and the boundaryless career. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 365-380.

Mirvis, P. H., & Hall, D. T. (1996). Psychological success and the boundaryless career. In M. B. Arthur & D. M. Rousseau (Eds.), The Boundaryless Career: A new employment principle for a new organizational era (pp. 237-255). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Mitchell, T. R., Holtom, B. C., Lee, T. W., Sablynski, C. J., & Erez, M. (2001). Why people stay: Using job embeddedness to predict voluntary turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 44(6), 1102-1121.

Mobley, W. H. (1977). Intermediate linkages in the relationship between job satisfaction and employee turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 237-240.

Mohr, G. B. (2000). The changing significance of different stressors after the announcement of bankruptcy: A longitudinal investigation with special emphasis on job insecurity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21(3), 337-359.

Morris, M. D. S., & Vekker, A. (2001). An alternative look at temporary workers, their choices, and the growth in temporary employment. Journal of Labor Research, 22(2), 373-390.

Morrow, P. C., McElroy, J. C., & Elliott, S. M. (1994). The effect of preference for work status, schedule, and shift on work-related attitudes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 45, 202-222.

Motowidlo, S. J., & Van Scotter, J. R. (1994). Evidence that task performance should be distinguished from contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(4), 475-480.

Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1979). The measurement of organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, 224-247.

Murtough, G., & Waite, M. (2000). The growth of non-traditional employment: Are jobs becoming more precarious? AusInfo, Canberra: Productivity Commission Staff Research Paper.

Mwamwenda, T. S. (1998). Teaching experience, job security, and job satisfaction among secondary school teachers in South Africa. Psychological Reports, 82(1), 139-142.

Nisbet, P., & Thomas, W. (2000). Attitudes, expectations and labour market behaviour: The case of self-employment in the UK construction industry. Work, Employment and Society, 14(2), 353-368.

Nolan, J. P., Wichert, I. C., & Burchell, B. J. (2000). Job insecurity, psychological well-being and family life. In E. Heery & J. Salmon (Eds.), The Insecure Workforce (pp. 181-209). London, UK: Routledge.

Nollen, S. D. (1996). Negative aspects of temporary employment. Journal of Labor Research, 17(4), 567-582.

Nollen, S. D., & Axel, H. (1996). Managing Contingent Workers: How to reap the benefits and reduce the risks. New York, NY: Amacom.

Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric Theory (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Oldham, G. R., Kulik, C. T., Stepina, L. P., & Ambrose, M. L. (1986). Relations between

situational factors and the comparative referents used by employees. Academy of Management Journal, 29(3), 599-608.

Olesen, V., & Katsuranis, F. (1978). Urban nomads: Women in temporary clerical services. In A. H. Stromberg & S. Harkess (Eds.), Women working: Theories and facts in perspective (pp. 316-338). Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield Publishers.

268

O'Quin, K., & LoTempio, S. (1998). Job satisfaction and intentions to turnover in human services agencies perceived as stable or nonstable. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 86, 339-344.

O'Reilly, C., 111, & Chatman, J. (1986). Organizational commitment and psychological attachment: The effects of compliance, identification, and internalization on prosocial behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), 492-499.

Organ, D. W. (1977). A reappraisal and reinterpretation of the satisfation-causes-performance hypothesis. Academy of Management Review, 2(1), 46-53.

Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Organ, D. W., & Konovsky, M. (1989). Cognitive versus affective determinants of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(1), 157-164.

Organ, D. W., & Paine, J. B. (1999). A new kind of performance for industrial and organizational psychology: Recent contributions to the study of organizational citzenship behavior. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (Vol. 14, pp. 337-368). Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Organ, D. W., & Paine, J. B. (2000). Contingent and marginal employment, commitment, and discretionary contributions. In R. Hodson (Ed.), Research in the Sociology of Work - Marginal Employment (Vol. 9, pp. 253-270). Stamford, CT: JAI Press Inc.

Organ, D. W., & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Journal, 48, 775-802.

Orpen, C. (1993a). Correlations between job insecurity and psychological well-being among white and black employees in South Africa. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 76(3), 885-886.

Orpen, C. (1993b). Job dependence as a moderator of effects of job threat on employees' job insecurity and performance. Psychological Reports, 72(2), 449-450.

Orpen, C. (1994). The effects of self-esteem and personal control on the relationship between job insecurity and psychological well-being. Social Behavior and Personality, 22(1), 53-55.

Osterman, P., & Kochan, T. A. (1990). Employment security and employment policy: An assessment of the issues. In K. G. Abraham & R. B. McKersie (Eds.), New Developments in the Labor Market: Toward a new institutional paradigm (pp. 155-184). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Paine, J. B., & Organ, D. W. (2000). The cultural matrix of organizational citizenship behavior: Some preliminary conceptual and empricial observations. Human Resource Management, 10(1), 45-59.

Parker, R. E. (1994). Flesh peddlers and warm bodies: The temporary help industry and its workers. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press.

Parker, S. K., Griffin, M. A., Sprigg, C. A., & Wall, T. D. (2002). Effects of temporary contracts on perceived work characteristics and job strain: A longitudinal study. Personnel Psychology, 55, 389-719.

Payne, R. L., & Jones, J. G. (1995). Measurement and methodolgical issues in social support. In S. V. Kasl & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Research methods in stess and health psychology (pp. 167-205). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

Pearce, J. L. (1993). Toward an organizational behavior of contract laborers: Their psychological involvement and effects of employee co-workers. Academy of Management Journal, 36(5), 1082-1096.

269

Pearce, J. L. (1998). Job insecurity is important, but not for the reasons you might think: The example of contingent workers. In C. L. Cooper & D. M. Rousseau (Eds.), Trends in Organizational Behavior (Vol. 5, pp. 31-46). Brisbane: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Pearlin, L. I. (1983). Role strains and personal stress. In H. B. Kaplan (Ed.), Psychosocial Stress: Trends in theory and research (pp. 3-32). Sydney, NSW: Academic Press.

Peck, J., & Theodore, N. (1998). The business of contingent work: Growth and restructuring in Chicago's temporary employment industry. Work, Employment and Society, 12(4), 655-674.

Peiró, J. M., García-Montalvo, J., & Gracia, F. (2002). How do young people cope with job flexibility?: Demographic and psychological antecedents of the resistance to accept a job with non-preferred flexibility features. Applied Psychology: An international review, 51(1), 43-66.

Pereles, K. L. (2000). Are traditional and adjunct faculty members really different? Comparing organizational and professional commitment. In R. Hodson (Ed.), Research in the Sociology of Work - Marginal Employment (Vol. 9, pp. 271-289). Stamford, CT: JAI Press Inc.

Peters, L. H., Jackofsky, E. F., & Salter, J. R. (1981). Predicting turnover: A comparison of part-time and full-time employees. Journal of Occupational Behaviour, 2, 89-98.

Pfeffer, J. (1994). Competitive advantage through people: Unleashing the power of the work force. Boston, Mass.: Harvard Business School Press.

Pfeffer, J., & Baron, J. N. (1988). Taking the workers back out: Recent trends in the structuring of employment. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior (Vol. 10, pp. 257-303). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Pierce, J. L., Gardner, D. G., Dunham, R. B., & Cummings, L. L. (1993). Moderation by organization-based self-esteem of role condition-employee response relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 36(2), 271-288.

Piore, M. J., & Sabel, C. F. (1984). The Second Industrial Divide: Possibilities for prosperity. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1997). Impact of organizational citizenship behavior on organizational performance: A review and suggestions for future research. Human Performance, 10(2), 133-151.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach, D. G. (2000). Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of Management, 26(3), 513-563.

Polivka, A. E. (1996). A profile of contingent workers. Monthly Labor Review, 119(10), 10-21.

Powell, W. W. (1990). Neither market not hierarchy: Network forms of organization. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior (Vol. 12, pp. 295-336). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Price, J. L. (1997). Handbook of organizational measurement. International Journal of Manpower, 18(4/5/6), 305-558.

Probst, T. M. (1998). Antecedents and consequences of job insecurity: An integrated model. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.

Probst, T. M. (2000). Wedded to the job: Moderating effects of job involvement on the consequences of job insecurity. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5(1), 63-73.

Probst, T. M. 2003. Development and validation of the Job Security Index and the Job Security Satisfaction scale: A classical test theory and IRT approach. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 76(4): 451-467.

270

Probst, T. M., & Brubaker, T. L. (2001). The effects of job insecurity on employee safety outcomes: Cross-sectional and longitudinal explorations. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 6(2), 139-159.

Provan, K. G. (1993). Embeddedness, interdependence, and opportunism in organizational supplier-buyer networks. Journal of Management, 19(4), 841-856.

Purcell, K., & Purcell, J. (1999). Insourcing, outsourcing and the growth of contingent labour as evidence of flexible employment strategies (UK). Bulletin of Comparative Labour Relations, 35, 163-181.

Quinn, R. P., & Staines, G. I. (1979). The 1977 Quality of Employment Survey. Ann Arbor, MI: Survey Center, Institute of Social Research, University of Michigan.

Reichers, A. E. (1986). Conflict and organizational commitments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), 508-514.

Reisel, W. D., & Banai, M. (2002). Comparison of a multidimensional and a global measure of job insecurity: Predicting job attitudes and work behaviors. Psychological Reports, 90(3), 913-922.

Reitzes, D. C., & Mutran, E. J. (1994). Multiple roles and identities: Factors influencing self-esteem among middle-aged working men and women. Social Psychology Quarterly, 57(4), 313-325.

Roberts, K. H., Glick, W. H., & Rotchford, N. L. (1982). A frame of reference approach to investigating part- and full-time workers across cultures. International Review of Applied Psychology, 31(3), 327-343.

Robinson, P. (2000). Insecurity and the flexible workforce: Measuring the ill-defined. In E. Heery & J. Salmon (Eds.), The Insecure Workforce (pp. 25-38). London, UK: Routledge.

Robinson, S. L., Kraatz, M. S., & Rousseau, D. M. (1994). Changing obligations and the psychological contract: A longitudinal study. Academy of Management Journal, 37(1), 137-152.

Rodriguez, E. (2002). Marginal employment and health in Britain and Germany: Does unstable employment predict health? Social Science & Medicine, 55(6), 963-979.

Rogers, J. K. (1995). Just a temp: Experience and structure of alienation in temporary clerical employment. Work and Occupations, 22(2), 137-166.

Rogers, J. K. (2000). Temps: The many faces of the changing workplace. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.

Rogers, J. K., & Henson, K. D. (1997). "Hey, why don't you wear a shorter skirt?" Structural vulnerability and the organization of sexual harassment in temporary clerical employment. Gender & Society, 11(2), 215-237.

Romeyn, J. (1992). Flexible working time: Part-time and casual employment. Canberra, A.C.T.: Dept. of Industrial Relations.

Rosenblatt, Z., & Ruvio, A. (1996). A test of a multidimensional model of job insecurity: The case of Israeli teachers. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17(Special Issue), 587-605.

Rosenblatt, Z., Talmud, I., & Ruvio, A. (1999). A gender-based framework of the experience of job insecurity and its effects on work attitudes. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8(2), 197-217.

Roskies, E., & Louis-Guerin, C. (1990). Job insecurity in managers: Antecedents and consequences. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 11, 345-359.

Roskies, E., Louis-Guerin, C., & Fournier, C. (1993). Coping with job insecurity: How does personality make a difference? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14, 617-630.

Rotchford, N. L., & Roberts, K. H. (1982). Part-time workers as missing persons in organizational research. Academy of Management Review, 7(2), 228-234.

271

Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80 (No. 609), 1-27.

Rousseau, D. M. (1989). Psychological and implied contracts in organizations. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 2(2), 121-139.

Rousseau, D. M. (1990). New hire perceptions of their own and their employers obligations: A study of psychological contracts. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 11, 389-400.

Rousseau, D. M., & Greller, M. M. (1994). Human Resource Practices: Administrative contract makers. Human Resource Management, 33(3), 385-401.

Rousseau, D. M., & McLean Parks, J. M. (1993). The contracts of individuals and organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 15, 1-43.

Rousseau, D. M., & Wade-Benzoni, K. A. (1994). Linking strategy and human resource practices: How employee and customer contracts are created. Human Resource Management, 33(3), 463-489.

Rusbult, C. E., & Farrell, D. (1983). A longitudinal test of the investment model: The impact on job satisfaction, job commitment, and turnover of variations in rewards, costs, alternatives, and investments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68(3), 429-438.

Ruvio, A., & Rosenblatt, Z. (1999). Job insecurity among Israeli schoolteachers: Sectoral profiles and organizational implications. Journal of Educational Administration, 37(2), 139-158.

Ryan, A. M., & Schmit, M. J. (1996). Calculating EEO statistics in the temporary help industry. Personnel Psychology, 49(1), 167-180.

Salancik, G. R. (1982). Commitment and the control of organizational behavior and belief. In B. M. Staw & G. R. Salancik (Eds.), New Directions in Organizational Behavior (pp. 1-54). Malabar, FL: Robert E. Krieger Publishing.

Schaubroeck, J., Ganster, D. C., & Fox, M. L. (1992). Dispositional affect and work-related stress. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(3), 322-335.

Schmidt, S. R., & Svorny, S. V. (1998). Recent trends in job security and stability. Journal of Labor Research, 19(4), 647-668.

Seligman, M. E. P. (1975). Helplessness. San Francisco: Freeman. Shapiro, D. H., Schwartz, C. E., & Austin, J. A. (1996). Controlling ourselves, controlling

our world: Psychology's role in understanding positive and negative consequences of seeking and gaining control. American Psychologist, 51, 1213-1230.

Sharpley, C. F., Reynolds, R., Acosta, A., & Dua, J. K. (1996). The presence, nature and effects of job stress on physical and psychological health at a large Australian university. Journal of Educational Administration, 34(4), 73-86.

Shaw, J. D., & Gupta, N. (2001). Pay fairness and employee outcomes: Exacerbation and attenuation effects of financial need. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74, 299-320.

Shore, L. M., & Tetrick, L. E. (1994). The psychological contract as an explanatory framework in the employment relationship. In C. L. Cooper & D. M. Rousseau (Eds.), Trends in Organizational Behavior (Vol. 1, pp. 91-109). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Simpson, M. (1994). An analysis of the characteristics and growth of casual employment in Australia. Perth, WA: Curtin University of Technology.

Sloboda, B. A. (1999). Psychological experiences of contingent workers and their work and organizational outcomes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Houston.

Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68(4), 653-663.

272

Smith, H. J., Spears, R., & Hamstra, I. J. (1999). Social identity and the context of relative deprivation. In N. Ellemers, R. Spears & B. Doosje (Eds.), Social Identity: context, commitment, content (pp. 205-229). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

Smith, V. (1994). Institutionalizing flexibility in a service firm: Multiple contingencies and hidden hierarchies. Work and Occupations, 21(3), 284-307.

Smithson, J., & Lewis, S. (2000). Is job insecurity changing the psychological contract? Personnel Review, 29(6), 680-702.

Spector, P. E. (1986). Perceived control by employees: A meta-analysis of studies concerning autonomy and participation at work. Human Relations, 39(11), 1005-1016.

Spector, P. E. (1988). Development of the work locus of control scale. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 61, 335-340.

Spector, P. E. (1998). A control theory of the job stress process. In C. L. Cooper (Ed.), Theories of organizational stress (pp. 153-169). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Spokane, A. R. (1994). The resolution of incongruence and the dynamics of person-environment fit. In M. L. Savikas & R. W. Lent (Eds.), Convergence in Career Development Theories (pp. 119-137). Palo Alto, CA: CPP Books.

Stamper, C. L., & Masterson, S. S. (2002). Insider or outsider? How employee perceptions of insider status affect their work behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(8), 875-894.

Sutton, R. I., & Kahn, R. L. (1987). Prediction, understanding, and control as antidotes to organizational stress. In J. W. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of Organizational Behavior (pp. 272-285). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Sverke, M., Gallagher, D. G., & Hellgren, J. (2000). Alternative work arrangements: Job stress, well-being, and work attitudes among employees with different employment contracts. In K. Isaksson, C. Hogstedt, C. Eriksson & T. Theorell (Eds.), Health effects of the new labour market (pp. 145-167). New York, NY: Plenum.

Sverke, M., & Hellgren, J. (2002). The nature of job insecurity: Understanding employment uncertainty on the brink of a new millennium. Applied Psychology: An international review, 51(1), 23-42.

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.

Tan, H.-H., & Tan, C.-P. (2002). Temporary employees in Singapore: What drives them? The Journal of Psychology, 136(1), 83-102.

Tansky, J. W., Gallagher, D. G., & Wetzel, K. W. (1997). The effect of demographics, work status, and relative equity on organizational commitment: Looking among part-time workers. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 14(3), 315-326.

Telly, C. S., French, W. L., & Scott, W. G. (1971). The relationship of inequity to turnover among hourly workers. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16(2), 164-172.

Terry, D. J., & Jimmieson, N. L. (1999). Work control and employee well-being: A decade review. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (Vol. 14, pp. 95-148). Brisbane, QLD: John Wiley & Sons.

Thoits, P. A. (1991). On merging identity theory and stress research. Social Psychology Quarterly, 54(2), 101-112.

Tilly, C. (1992b). Dualism in part-time employment. Industrial Relations, 31(2), 330-347.

273

Tilly, C. (1992a). Short hours, short shrift: The causes and consequences of part-time employment. In V. L. duRivage (Ed.), New Policies for the Part-time and Contingent Workforce (pp. 15-44). Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.

Tisdall, C. (1999). Learning and the part-time worker. Journal of European Industrial Training, 23(3), 121-126.

Tivendell, J., & Bourbonnais, C. (2000). Job insecurity in a sample of Canadian civil servants as a function of personality and perceived job characteristics. Psychological Reports, 87(1), 55-60.

Tregaskis, O. (1997). The "non-permanent" reality. Employee Relations, 19(6), 535-554. Tsui, A. S., Pearce, J. L., Porter, L. W., & Tripoli, A. M. (1997). Alternative approaches to

the employee-organization relationship: Does investment in employees pay off? Academy of Management Journal, 40(5), 1089-1121.

Tucker, J. (1993). Everyday forms of employee resistance. Sociological Forum, 8(1), 25-45. Turnley, W. H., & Feldman, D. C. (1999). The impact of psychological contract violations

on exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect. Human Relations, 52(7), 895-922. Turnley, W. H., & Feldman, D. C. (2000). Re-examining the effects of psychological

contract violations: Unmet expectations and job dissatisfaction as mediators. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 25-42.

Tyler, T. R. (1999). Why people cooperate with organizations: An identity-based perspective. In R. I. Sutton & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior (Vol. 21, pp. 201.246). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Uzzi, B. (1996). The sources and consequences of embeddedness for the economic performance of organizations: The network effect. American Sociological Review, 61(4), 675-698.

Uzzi, B. (1997). Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: The paradox of embeddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 35-67.

Van Dyne, L., & Ang, S. (1998). Organizational citizenship behavior of contingent workers in Singapore. Academy of Management Journal, 41(6), 692-703.

Van Dyne, L., Graham, J. M., & Dienesch, R. M. (1994). Organizational citizenship behavior: Construct redefinition, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 37(4), 765-802.

Van Dyne, L., & LePine, J. A. (1998). Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: Evidence of construct and predictive validity. Academy of Management Journal, 41(1), 108-119.

Van Emmerik, H., & Sanders, K. (2004). Social embeddedness and job performance of tenured and non-tenured professionals. Human Resource Management Journal, 14(1), 40-54.

Van Scotter, J. R., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1996). Interpersonal facilitation and job dedication as separate facets of contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(5), 525-531.

Van Vuuren, T., Klandermans, B., Jacobson, D., & Hartley, J. (1991a). Employees' reactions to job insecurity. In J. Hartley, D. Jacobson, B. Klandermans & T. Van Vuuren (Eds.), Job insecurity: Coping with jobs at risk (pp. 79-103). London, UK: Sage Publications.

Van Vuuren, T., Klandermans, B., Jacobson, D., & Hartley, J. (1991b). Predicting employees' perceptions of job insecurity. In J. Hartley, D. Jacobson, B. Klandermans & T. Van Vuuren (Eds.), Job Insecurity: Coping with jobs at risk (pp. 65-78). London, UK: Sage Publications.

Vance, R. J., & Kuhnert, K. W. (1988, August). Job insecurity and employee health. Paper presented at the Well-being at work: Profits, programs, and prevention, Atlanta, GA.

274

Viswesvaran, C., Sanchez, J. I., & Fisher, J. (1999). The role of social support in the process of work stress: A meta-analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54(2), 314-334.

Von Hippel, C., Greenberger, D. B., Heneman, R. L., Mangum, S. L., & Skoglind, J. D. (2000). Voluntary and involuntary temporary employees: Predicting satisfaction, commitment, and personal control. In R. Hodson (Ed.), Research in the Sociology of Work - Marginal Employment (Vol. 9, pp. 291-309). Stamford, CT: JAI Press Inc.

Von Hippel, C., Mangum, S. L., Greenberger, D. B., Heneman, R. L., & Skoglind, J. D. (1997). Temporary employment: Can organizations and employees both win? Academy of Management Executive, 11(1), 93-104.

Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York, NY: Wiley. Ward, K., Grimshaw, D., Rubery, J., & Beynon, H. (2001). Dilemmas in the management of

temporary work agency staff. Human Resource Management Journal, 11(4), 3-21. Warr, P. B. (1994). A conceptual framework for the study of work and mental health. Work

& Stress, 8, 84-97. Warr, P., & Jackson, P. (1987). Men without jobs: Some correlates of age and length of

unemployment. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 57, 77-85. Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief

measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1063-1070.

Weller, S., Cussen, J., & Webber, M. (1999). Casual employment and employer strategy. Labour & Industry, 10(1), 15-33.

Westman, M., Etzion, D., & Danon, E. (2001). Job insecurity and crossover of burnout in married couples. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22(5), 467-481.

Wetzel, K., Soloshy, D. E., & Gallagher, D. G. (1990). The work attitudes of full-time and part-time registered nurses. Health Care Management Review, 15(3), 79-85.

Whelan, C. T. (1992). The role of income, life-style deprivation and financial strain in mediating the impact of unemployment on psychological distress. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 65(4), 331-344.

White, R. W. (1959). Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence. Psychological Review, 66(5), 297-333.

Williamson, O. E. (1975). Markets and hierarchies: Analysis and antitrust implications. New York, NY: Free Press.

Williamson, O. E. (1985). The Economic Institutions of Capitalism: Firms, Markets, Relational Contracting. New York: Free Press.

Wilson, S. M., Larson, J. H., & Stone, K. I. (1993). Stress among job insecure workers and their spouses. Family Relations, 42, 74-80.

Winnubst, J. A. M., & Schabracq, M. J. (1996). Social support, stress and organization: Towards optimal matching. In M. J. Schabracq, J. A. M. Winnubst & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Handbook of work and health psychology (pp. 87-102). New York, NY: John Wiley.

Wooden, M. (1999). Outsourcing and the use of contractors: Evidence from the AWIRS. The Economic and Labour Relations Review, 10(1), 22-35.

Yousef, D. A. (1998). Satisfaction with job security as a predictor of organizational commitment and job performance in a multicultural environment. International Journal of Manpower, 19(3), 184-194.

275

Appendix 1 – Letter of Introduction – study one Researcher’s Name: Lyn Clark Telephone: 07 3864 9386

E-mail: lj.clark@qut.edu.au Dear Prospective Participant I am a PhD student in Management at the Queensland University of Technology working under the supervision of Dr. Lisa Bradley. As part of an ongoing research project, I am investigating differences between the attitudes and behaviours of on-going (permanent) and casual/temporary employees working at universities. (Identifying name) University has agreed to distribute the surveys amongst its staff for inclusion in the study. We would very much appreciate your assistance in this research. Participation in the study involves answering questions regarding your attitudes toward your work. Participation is completely voluntary and you are free to refrain from answering any question (s). There are no right or wrong answers. It is the expression of your real thoughts and feelings that is important. Complete confidentiality is guaranteed. No one other than my supervisor, Dr. Bradley, or myself will have access to the data you provide. Neither your name nor any other information that could identify you will be connected with your answers. Completing the survey takes approximately 15 minutes. We hope also to conduct a follow-up study in approximately 4 months’ time. Should you be interested in participating in that study too, please provide your contact details on the enclosed postcard. If you do decide to forward your contact details we will get in touch with you to invite you to participate in the second study. You will be under no obligation to participate if you return the postcard. Participation will be voluntary. If you have any questions or would like more information please contact me (3864 9386) at QUT. If you have any concerns about the ethical conduct of this research please contact the University Human Research Ethics Committee, on 3864 2902. Thank you for your consideration of participation in this study; your help is greatly appreciated in the completion of my PhD degree. Sincerely Lyn Clark

276

Appendix 2 – Questionnaire – study one Each of the following statements represents a commonly held opinion. There are no right or wrong answers. You will probably agree with some items and disagree with others. Read each statement carefully then indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree by circling the number following each statement.

Stro

ngly

di

sagr

ee

Dis

agre

e m

oder

atel

y

Slig

htly

di

sagr

ee

Nei

ther

ag

ree

nor

disa

gree

Slig

htly

ag

ree

Agr

ee

mod

erat

ely

Stro

ngly

ag

ree

1. A job is what you make of it.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

2. My job performance history will protect me from losing my job in this organisation.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

3. When I accepted my current job, I had a great deal of choice as to whether I took a casual or permanent job.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

4. My income from my job in this organisation is important to me (and my dependents).

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

5. I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career with this organisation.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

6. I voluntarily assist my co-workers with their work responsibilities.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

7. On most jobs, people can pretty much accomplish whatever they set out to accomplish.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8. I have skills that would enable me to find employment outside the tertiary education industry.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

9. I enjoy discussing this organisation with people outside it.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

10. Regardless of the circumstances, I always produce the highest quality work.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

11. If you know what you want out of a job, you can find a job that gives it to you.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

12. I believe that my job in this organisation is secure.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

13. I really feel as if this organisation’s problems are my own.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

14. I am willing to stand up to protect the reputation of this organisation.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

15. If employees are unhappy with a decision made by their boss, they should do something about it.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

16. My personal circumstances (e.g., family obligations, financial responsibilities, transport difficulties) limit my job choices as to whether I take permanent work or casual work.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

17. I do not feel like ‘part of the family’ at this organisation.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

18. I tell outsiders that this organisation is not a good place at which to work.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

277

The next set of questions asks you to think about the relationships you have with various people. Please circle the response that best matches how you feel. How much does each of these people go out of their way to do things to make your work life easier for you? 19. your immediate supervisor

Very much

Somewhat

A little

Not at all

Don’t have any such person

20. other people at work

Very much

Somewhat

A little

Not at all

Don’t have any such person

21. your spouse/partner, friends or relatives

Very much

Somewhat

A little

Not at all

Don’t have any such person

How much is each of the following people willing to listen to your personal problems? 22. your immediate supervisor

Very much

Somewhat

A little

Not at all

Don’t have any such person

23. other people at work

Very much

Somewhat

A little

Not at all

Don’t have any such person

24. your spouse/partner, friends or relatives

Very much

Somewhat

A little

Not at all

Don’t have any such person

Read each of the following statements carefully then indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree by circling the number following each statement.

Stro

ngly

di

sagr

ee

Mod

erat

ely

disa

gree

Slig

htly

di

sagr

ee

Slig

htly

ag

ree

Agr

ee

mod

erat

ely St

rong

ly

agre

e 25. Whenever I encounter a

difficult problem, I usually think about it a lot.

1

2

3

4

5

6

26. I tend to become really aggravated when things don’t go right at work.

1

2

3

4

5

6

27. If an accident happened right now, it would not disturb me very much.

1

2

3

4

5

6

28. When I hear of bad news, it does not bother me as much as it does my friends.

1

2

3

4

5

6

29. If something were to upset me right now, I think I’d be able to calm down quickly.

1

2

3

4

5

6

30. Indicate with a CROSS ( X ) on the line below what you believe are the chances that you will have a job at this organisation for as long as you desire one.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

278

Stro

ngly

di

sagr

ee

Dis

agre

e m

oder

atel

y

Slig

htly

di

sagr

ee

Nei

ther

ag

ree

nor

disa

gree

Slig

htly

ag

ree

Agr

ee

mod

erat

ely

Stro

ngly

ag

ree

31. Getting the job you want is mostly a matter of luck.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

32. Making money is primarily a matter of good fortune.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

33. I am confident that this organisation will continue to need my skills and job knowledge in the foreseeable future.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

34. I prefer to do permanent work rather than temporary or casual work.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

35. I do not feel ‘emotionally attached’ to this organisation.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

36. One of the few serious consequences of leaving this organisation would be the scarcity of available alternatives.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

37. I volunteer to do things for my work group.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

38. I rarely waste time while I’m at work. 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

39. Most people are capable of doing their jobs well if they make the effort.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

40. It takes a lot of luck to be an outstanding employee on most jobs.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

41. In my opinion I will have a job in this organisation for as long as I want one.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

42. This organisation has a great deal of personal meaning for me.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

43. One of the major reasons I continue to work for this organisation is that leaving would require considerable personal sacrifice – another organisation may not match the overall benefits I have here.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

44. I willingly give my time to help new employees adjusting to their work environment.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

45. I take my job seriously and rarely make mistakes.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

The following questions ask you to think about your plans for staying in your current job. Please answer each of the following questions by circling the response which best describes how you feel about each question. 46. Over the past month, how often

have you seriously thought about seeking another job?

Rarely or

never

Occasion-ally

Some-times

Often

Very often

47. Do you seriously intend to seek another job during the next three months?

Definitely

not

Probably

not

Possibly

yes

Probably

yes

Definitely

yes 48. Over the past month, how often

have you seriously thought about making a real effort to enter a different occupation?

Rarely or

never

Occasion-ally

Sometimes

Often

Very often

279

This section concerns how you’ve been feeling in general, over the past few weeks. Please answer the following questions by circling the answer that most nearly applies to you. Remember you are responding to your present and recent complaints, not those you’ve had in the past. 49. Been able to concentrate on whatever

you’re doing? Better

than usual Same as

usual Less than

usual Much less than usual

50.

Lost much sleep over worry?

Not at all

No more

than usual

Rather more than

usual

Much

more than usual

51. Felt that you are playing a useful part in things?

More so than usual

Same as usual

Less useful

than usual

Much less useful

52. Felt capable of making decisions about things?

More so than usual

Same as usual

Less so than usual

Much less capable

53. All in all, how satisfied would you say you are with your job?

Very

satisfied

Somewhat satisfied

Not too satisfied

Not at all satisfied

54.

Felt constantly under strain?

Not at all

No more

than usual

Rather more than

usual

Much

more than usual

55. Felt that you couldn’t overcome your difficulties?

Not at all

No more

than usual

Rather more than

usual

Much

more than usual

56. Been able to enjoy your normal day-to-day activities?

More so than usual

Same as usual

Less so than usual

Much less than usual

57. Been able to face up to your problems? More so than usual

Same as usual

Less able than usual

Much less able

How easy is it to talk with each of the following people? 58. your immediate supervisor

Very easy

Somewhat

A little

Not at all

Don’t have any such person

59. other people at work

Very easy

Somewhat

A little

Not at all

Don’t have any such person

60. your spouse/partner, friends or relatives

Very easy

Somewhat

A little

Not at all

Don’t have any such person

How much can each of these people be relied on when things get tough at work? 61. your immediate supervisor

Very much

Somewhat

A little

Not at all

Don’t have any such person

62. other people at work

Very much

Somewhat

A little

Not at all

Don’t have any such person

63. your spouse/partner, friends or relatives

Very much

Somewhat

A little

Not at all

Don’t have any such person

280

64. Indicate with a CROSS ( X ) on the line below what you believe are the chances that, should your current job be terminated, you could find a job as good as your current one within 1 month of active job-seeking.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Read each of the following statements carefully then indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree by circling the number following each statement.

Stro

ngly

di

sagr

ee

Mod

erat

ely

disa

gree

Slig

htly

di

sagr

ee

Slig

htly

ag

ree

Agr

ee

mod

erat

ely St

rong

ly

agre

e

65. If I were to encounter a difficult problem, I would probably worry about it more than my friends.

1

2

3

4

5

6

66. I tend to become very angry when someone gets recognition that really belongs to me.

1

2

3

4

5

6

67. It irritates me more than my friends whenever things don’t go the way they should.

1

2

3

4

5

6

68. I become furious when someone tries to take advantage of me.

1

2

3

4

5

6

69. If something bad would happen to me, I would probably become depressed.

1

2

3

4

5

6

70. How often have you seriously

thought about resigning from your job during the past month?

Rarely or

never

Occasion-ally

Some-times

Often

Very often

71. During the next three months do you seriously intend to resign from your job?

Definitely

not

Probably

not

Possibly

yes

Probably

yes

Definitely

yes 72. How often have you seriously

thought about changing from permanent to casual work (or from casual to permanent work)?

Rarely or

never

Occasion-ally

Some-times

Often

Very often

73. Do you seriously intend to apply for a job in a different occupation during the next three months?

Definitely

not

Probably

not

Possibly

yes

Probably

yes

Definitely

yes

74. I sometimes try to get even rather than forgive and forget.

Definitely

True

Mostly True

Don’t Know

Mostly False

Definitely

False Over the past few weeks have you: 75. Been feeling unhappy and

depressed? Not at all No more than

usual Rather more than usual

Much more than usual

76. Been losing confidence in yourself?

Not at all No more than usual

Rather more than usual

Much more than usual

77. Been thinking of yourself as a worthless person?

Not at all No more than usual

Rather more than usual

Much more than usual

78. Been feeling reasonably happy all things considered?

More so than usual

Same as usual Less so than usual

Much less than usual

281

Stro

ngly

di

sagr

ee

Dis

agre

e m

oder

atel

y

Slig

htly

di

sagr

ee

Nei

ther

ag

ree

nor

disa

gree

Slig

htly

ag

ree

Agr

ee

mod

erat

ely

Stro

ngly

ag

ree

79. In order to get a really good job you need to have family members or friends in high places.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

80. I could easily adjust my financial commitments (by reducing expenditure or increasing other sources of income) should I lose my job in this organisation.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

81. I do not feel a strong sense of belonging to this organisation.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

82. I frequently assist others in my work group for the benefit of our group.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

83. Promotions are usually a matter of good fortune.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

84. I have many jobs to choose from besides my current job.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

85. When it comes to landing a really good job, who you know is more important than what you know.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

86. I consider that if I lost my job in this organisation my standard of living would change for the worse.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

87. When employees criticize this organisation, I do not defend it.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

88. It would be very hard for me to leave this organisation right now, even if I wanted to.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

89. Promotions are given to employees who perform well on the job.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

90. I comply with this organisation’s rules and procedures even when I’m unsupervised and no one can find out.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

91. To make a lot of money you have to know the right people.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

92. People who perform their jobs well generally get rewarded for it.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

93. To maintain the standard of living I desire for myself (and my dependents), I must keep my current job.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

94. Despite my work experience there are few job opportunities for me in the job market.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

95.. I eagerly tell outsiders good news about this organisation and clarify their misunderstandings.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

96. One of the major reasons I continue to work for this organisation is that I believe that loyalty is important and therefore feel a sense of moral obligation to remain.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

282

97. Knowing what you know now,

if you had to decide all over again whether to take the type of job you now have, what would you decide?

Decide without hesitation to take the same type of

job

Have some

second thoughts

Decide definitely not to take this

type of job

98. If a friend of yours told you that

they were interested in working in a job like yours, what would you tell them?

Strongly

recommend it

Have doubts

about recommending it

Advise them

against it

Stro

ngly

di

sagr

ee

Mod

erat

ely

disa

gree

Slig

htly

di

sagr

ee

Slig

htly

ag

ree

Agr

ee

mod

erat

ely

Stro

ngly

ag

ree

99. If I were given a difficult project to work on, I would worry about it a lot.

1

2

3

4

5

6

99 At the moment, I could face any crisis and not become upset.

1

2

3

4

5

6

100 I do not worry as much as my friends whenever something goes wrong.

1

2

3

4

5

6

101. Indicate with a CROSS ( X ) on the line below the extent to which your income from this job contributes to your household’s total income:

My spouse/partner I am a I am

I am is the main breadwinner co-provider the main breadwinner the sole breadwinner

102.

AGE

……………………...(years)

……………………(months)

103.

GENDER

Male

Female

104.

I am single

I have a spouse/partner who

is NOT employed

I have a spouse/partner who

WORKS PART TIME

I have a spouse/partner

who WORKS FULL TIME

105.

I work

on an on-going basis at this organisation

on a casual or temporary basis at this organisation

through an agency at this organisation

My hours are PART TIME

My hours are FULL TIME

106. How long have you worked in this organisation? ………….(yrs)

……..(mths)

For CASUAL/TEMPORARY/AGENCY employees only: How long have you worked as a CASUAL/TEMPORARY/CONTRACTOR?

………….(yrs)

……..(mths)

283

107. If you were free right now to go into any type of job you wanted, what would your choice be?

Take the same

type of job as now have

Take a different

type of job

Not want to

work

108. Please indicate with a TICK ( ) the highest level of education you have successfully completed and/or studies you are currently undertaking. Year 10 Partially completed university degree Year 12 Completed university degree Partially completed diploma or trade qualification

Partially completed post-graduate university degree (e.g. Masters)

Completed diploma or trade qualification

Completed post-graduate university degree

Stro

ngly

di

sagr

ee

Dis

agre

e m

oder

atel

y

Slig

htly

di

sagr

ee

Nei

ther

ag

ree

nor

disa

gree

Slig

htly

ag

ree

Agr

ee

mod

erat

ely

Stro

ngly

ag

ree

109. If I had to, I could easily find a suitable job elsewhere.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

110. Most employees have more influence on their supervisors than they think they do.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

111. Too much in my life would be disrupted if I wanted to leave this organisation now.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

112. I voluntarily help my co-workers learn about their work.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

113. I feel that I have too few options to consider leaving this organisation.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

114. Right now, staying with my organisation is a matter of necessity as much as desire.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

115. I willingly get involved to solve work-related problems.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

116. The main difference between people who make a lot of money and people who make a little money is luck.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

117. I am confident that my job search skills (e.g., resume writing, job interview techniques) are sufficient to help me in finding another job in the event of job loss.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Thank you for completing the survey. Please return the questionnaire in the REPLY PAID envelope to:

Queensland University of Technology (002) (ACSM – Attention Lyn Clark) Reply Paid 2434 BRISBANE QLD 4001

284

Appendix 3 – Letter of Introduction – study two Dear (employee’s first name) Last year you completed a survey for me that looked at attitude similarities between on-going and casual employees at (name of university). I greatly appreciate your assistance. You may remember I told you I hoped to do a follow-up survey and you kindly provided me with your contact details. I am now ready to conduct that second survey. It is very important for me to obtain data from those who participated in my earlier study so I can look at what attitude changes might have taken place. Like before, participation is completely voluntary. You are free to decline to answer any of the survey items if you wish. Neither your name nor any other information that might identify you will be connected with your responses. No one other than my supervisor, Dr. Bradley (3864 1248), or me will have access to any data you provide. The questionnaire is attached to this e-mail. If you still work at (name of university) and wish to participate in my study, please download the document and return it to me via the Internal Mail to the address below. Alternately, I can mail you a hard copy of the questionnaire with a Reply Paid envelope if you prefer, just let me know where to send it. If you no longer work at (name of university), please reply to this e-mail changing the Subject to: “No longer at (name of university)”. If this is the case, could you also let me know whether your new job is permanent or casual. This would help me a great deal in my research. Many thanks for considering participation in my study. It is always difficult for researchers to obtain data across time periods but such information greatly contributes to our knowledge of the world of work. If you have any questions, wish to receive the questionnaire by another method, or would like more information please contact me (3864 9386) at QUT. Regards Lyn Clark

285

Appendix 4 – Questionnaire – study two

Facility of Business

School of Management

Participation in this study is completely voluntary and you are free to refrain from answering any items. There is no right or wrong answer. Your responses will be kept confidential. No one other than my supervisor, Dr. Lisa Bradley (3864 1248) or me will have access to the data you choose to provide. Neither your name nor any other information that might identify you will be connected with your responses. If you have any questions or would like more information please contact me (3864 9386) at QUT. If you have any concerns about the ethical conduct of this research please contact the University Human Research Ethics Committee, on 3864 2902.

Many thanks for assisting me in my research. Lyn Clark (Serial number)

Each of the following statements represents a commonly held opinion. You will probably agree with some items and disagree with others. Read each statement carefully then indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree by circling the number following each statement.

Stro

ngly

di

sagr

ee

Dis

agre

e m

oder

atel

y

Slig

htly

di

sagr

ee

Nei

ther

ag

ree

nor

disa

gree

Slig

htly

ag

ree

Agr

ee

mod

erat

ely

Stro

ngly

ag

ree

1. I like the members of my work group.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

2. My job performance history will protect me from losing my job in this organisation.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

3. I have a lot of freedom on this job to decide how to pursue my goals.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

4. My co-workers are similar to me.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

5. I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career with this organisation.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

6. The perks on this job are outstanding.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

7. I assist my co-workers with their work responsibilities.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8. My job utilizes my skills and talents well.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

9. I have skills that would enable me to find employment outside the tertiary education industry.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

10. I enjoy discussing my organisation with people outside it.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

11. I feel that people at work respect me a great deal.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

286

Stro

ngly

di

sagr

ee

Dis

agre

e m

oder

atel

y

Slig

htly

di

sagr

ee

Nei

ther

ag

ree

nor

disa

gree

Slig

htly

ag

ree

Agr

ee

mod

erat

ely

Stro

ngly

ag

ree

12.

Regardless of the circumstances, I always produce the highest quality work.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

13. I would sacrifice a lot if I left this job.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

14. I believe that my job in this organisation is secure.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

15. I really feel as if this organisation’s problems are my own.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

16. I am willing to stand up to protect the reputation of this organisation.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

17. The prospects for continuing employment with this organisation are excellent.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

18. I am well compensated for my level of job performance.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

19. I do not feel like ‘part of the family’ at this organisation.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

20. I tell outsiders that this organisation is not a good place at which to work.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

21. I feel like I am a good match for this organisation.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

22. The benefits are good on this job. 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

23. I am confident that this organisation will continue to need my skills and job knowledge in the foreseeable future.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

24. I fit with this organisation’s culture. 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

25. I do not feel ‘emotionally attached’ to this organisation.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

26. One of the few serious consequences of leaving this organisation would be the scarcity of available alternatives.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

27. I volunteer to do things for my work group.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

28. I rarely waste time while I’m at work. 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

29.

I like the authority and responsibility I have in this organisation.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

30.

My promotional opportunities are excellent here.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

31.

In my opinion I will have a job in this organisation for as long as I want one.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

32. This organisation has a great deal of personal meaning for me.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

33. One of the major reasons I continue to work for this organisation is that leaving would require considerable personal sacrifice – another organisation may not match the overall benefits I have here.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

287

The following questions ask you to think about your plans for staying in your current job. Please answer each of the following questions by circling the response which best describes how you feel. 34. Over the past month, how

often have you seriously thought about seeking another job?

Rarely or

never

Occasion-ally

Some-times

Often

Very often

35. Do you seriously intend to seek another job during the next three months?

Definitely

not

Probably

not

Possibly

yes

Probably

yes

Definitely

yes 36. Over the past month, how

often have you seriously thought about making a real effort to enter a different occupation?

Rarely or

never

Occasion-ally

Some-times

Often

Very often

37. How many co-workers do you

interact with regularly? (number of co-workers)

38. How many co-workers are high dependent on you?

(number of co-workers)

39. How many work teams are you on?

(number of work teams)

40. How many work committees are you on?

(number of work committees)

41. How long have you worked at this organisation?

………………….(years)

……………….(months)

42. How long have you worked in your current position?

………………….(years)

……………….(months)

43. How long have you worked in the tertiary education industry?

………………….(years)

……………….(months)

44.

AGE

…………….(years)

………..(months)

45.

GENDER

Male

Female

46.

I am single

I have a spouse/partner who

is NOT employed

I have a spouse/partner who

WORKS PART TIME

I have a spouse/partner

who WORKS FULL TIME

47.

I work

on an on-going basis at this organisation

on a casual or temporary basis at this organisation

through an agency at this organisation

My hours are PART TIME

My hours are FULL TIME

48. Indicate with a CROSS ( X ) on the line below what you believe are the chances that, should your current job be terminated, you could find a job as good as your current one within 1 month of active job-seeking.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

288

Stro

ngly

di

sagr

ee

Dis

agre

e m

oder

atel

y

Slig

htly

di

sagr

ee

Nei

ther

ag

ree

nor

disa

gree

Slig

htly

ag

ree

Agr

ee

mod

erat

ely

Stro

ngly

ag

ree

49. I do not feel a strong sense of belonging to this organisation.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

50. I frequently assist others in my work group for the benefit of our group.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

51. I have many jobs to choose from besides my current job.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

52. When employees criticize this organisation, I do not defend it.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

53.

It would be very hard for me to leave this organisation right now, even if I wanted to.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

54.

I comply with this organisation’s rules and procedures even when I’m unsupervised and no one can find out.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

55.

Despite my work experience there are few job opportunities for me in the job market.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

56. I eagerly tell outsiders good news about this organisation and clarify any misunderstandings they may have.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

57. If I had to, I could easily find a suitable job elsewhere.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

58. Too much in my life would be disrupted if I wanted to leave my organisation now.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

59. I voluntarily help my co-workers learn about their work.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

60. I feel that I have too few options to consider leaving this organisation.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

61. Right now, staying with my organisation is a matter of necessity as much as desire.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

62. I willingly get involved to solve work-related problems.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

63. I am confident that my job search skills (e.g., resume writing, job interview techniques) are sufficient to help me in finding another job in the event of job loss.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

64. I willingly give my time to help new employees adjusting to their work environment.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

65. I take my job seriously and rarely make mistakes.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

66. The superannuation benefits provided by this organisation are excellent.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

289

67. Indicate with a CROSS ( X ) on the line below what you believe are the chances that you will have a job with your current employer for as long as you desire one.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Now think about the type of work you do in your job in this organisation. CIRCLE the response that best describes how you feel. 68.

Knowing what you know now, if you had to decide all over again whether to take the type of job you now have, what would you decide?

Decide without hesitation to take the same type of job

Have some second thoughts

Decide definitely not to take this type of job

69.

If you were free right now to go into any type of job you wanted, what would your choice be?

Take the same type of job as now have

Take a different type of job

Not want to work

70.

If a friend of yours told you that they were interested in working in a job like yours, what would you tell them?

Strongly

recommend it

Have doubts about recommending it

Advise them

against it

71.

All in all, how satisfied would you say you are with your job?

Very

satisfied

Somewhat satisfied

Not too satisfied

Not at all satisfied

72.

How often have you seriously thought about resigning from your job during the past month?

Rarely or

never

Occasion-ally

Some-times

Often

Very often

73.

During the next three months do you seriously intend to resign from your job?

Definitely

not

Probably not

Possibly

yes

Probably

yes

Definitely

yes 74.

How often have you seriously thought about changing from permanent to casual work (or from casual to permanent work)?

Rarely or

never

Occasion-ally

Some-times

Often

Very often

75.

Do you seriously intend to apply for a job in a different occupation during the next three months?

Definitely

not

Probably not

Possibly

yes

Probably

yes

Definitely

yes Thank you for completing the survey. Please return the questionnaire via the INTERNAL MAIL to:

QUT (Business) Level 1 126 Margaret St

Attn: Lyn Clark

290

Appendix 5 – Follow-up letter – study two Dear (employee’s first name) Last month I sent you an e-mail inviting you to participate in a follow-up survey looking at attitude similarities between on-going and casual employees at (university name). It is not too late for you to participate. The questionnaire is attached to this e-mail. It is extremely important for me to collect data from those who participated in my study last year. Like before, all responses provided are kept confidential. If you wish to participate, please download the document and return it to me via the Internal Mail to the address below. Alternately, I can mail you a hard copy of the questionnaire with a Reply Paid envelope if you prefer, just let me know where to send it. Many thanks for considering participation in my study. It is always difficult for researchers to obtain data across time periods but such information greatly contributes to our knowledge of the world of work. Regards Lyn Clark