Transcript Diapositiva 1

JOB INSECURITY AND HEALTH IN PERMANENT AND NON PERMANENT WORKERS
Inmaculada Silla, Beatriz Sora and Francisco J. Gracia.
University of Valencia
INTRODUCTION
Despite the present growing of temporary employees in the labor market, the costs and benefits to both employee
health and organizational performance, of increasing temporary work, are still unclear. Most of the results on the
effects of temporary employment are contradictory.
One of the main reasons for the contradictory results is that initial work involving temporary employees considered
them to be an homogeneous population (e. g. Gannon, 1984; Gannon & Brainin, 1971), composed of low-skilled
employees that would prefer a permanent job.
Several studies suggests that although the majority of temporary workers are not voluntary, some temporary workers
specifically choose temporary work arrangements over permanent work arrangements for different reasons (Aronson
& Goransson, 1999; Barringer & Sturman, 1999; Feldman, Doerpinghaus & Turnley, 1994; Hippel, Mangum,
Greenberger, heneman & Skogling, J. D., 1997; Issakson & Bellagh, 2002; Krausz, Brandwein & Fox, 1995; Pearce,
1998; Polivka, 1996; Tremlett & Collins, 1999). On the basis of these findings, it can be concluded that about a third
of these employed as temporary workers express a preference for it. This does indicate that it is a variable that
needs to be taken into account when considering the consequences of temporary work. In fact, in several empirical
studies, this distinction between voluntary and involuntary temporary employees has revealed itself as relevant in
understanding the implications of temporary work on individual and organizational outcomes ( Elligson, Gruys &
Sackett, 1998; Issakson et al., 2002; Krausz et al. 1995; Krausz, 2000).
On the other hand, although the majority of temporary workers are low-skilled, some of them are high-skilled
workers. For instance, Segal & Sullivan, 1997 reported that most temporary work assignments require low skills, with
approximately 75% of temporary employees performing blue and pink collar work. Complementary, these results
imply that 25 % of these temporary employees are performing managerial, professional, and technical work. In
addition, the evidence suggest that growth in temporary help services is happening in two areas, low skill blue and
high skill white collar work ( Dieshenhouse, 1993; Golden & Appelbaum, 1992; Segal, 1996; Segal & Sullivan, 1997).
However, literature about consequences of temporary work has considered temporary workers as an homogeneous
group with low skills and a low preference for temporary work. There is enough evidence to support the existence of
widespread heterogeneity amongst temporary workers. Specifically, a relevant percentage of non-permanent
workers with high skills prefer this kind of contract. Contradictory results found in the literature about consequences
of temporary work on individuals and organizations can be due to the fact that previous research has ignored the
heterogeneity existing among temporary workers.
Marler, Milkovich & Barringer (1998) have argued convincingly that we should not treat temporary
workers as homogeneous. They distinguished four main categories of temporary workers based on
their preference for temporary work and their skill level (see Figure 1). The boundaryless worker, has
high skills and a high preference for temporary work; and it could be linked to the knowledge or the
free worker (Guest, 2002; Knell, 2000). The transitional worker has high skills and a low preference for
temporary work and is therefore likely to view temporary work as a transitional arrangement, as a “step
stone” to a permanent job. They are truly “temporary” temporaries. The career temporary worker has
low skills and a high preference for temporary work. They are as likely as boundaryless to prefer
temporary work because they are more interested in non-work pursuits. Guest (2002) refers to this
group as permanent temporaries. Finally, the traditional temporary has low skills and a low preference
for temporary work.
In another study, Marler et al. (2002) using hierarchical cluster analysis with a representative national
sample of 614 temporary workers obtained two groups of temporary employees, boundaryless and
traditional. Traditional temporary group consisted of significantly higher proportions of blue collar and
pink collar occupations and lower level of preference than boundaryless temporaries who were mainly
white collar. The group of boundaryless temporaries was composed of a higher proportion of
individuals who valued temporary work for its flexibility and had a greater level of education compared
to traditional temporaries.
FIGURE 1. Temporary Worker Types
High
TRANSITIONAL
BOUNDARYLESS
TRADITIONAL
CAREER
SKILL
Low
Low
High
PREFERENCE FOR TEMPORARY WORK
METHOD
AIM AND HYPOTHESES
The purpose of this paper is to study the perceptions of job insecurity and health-related variables (well-being and life
satisfaction) within different types of temporary workers and to compare them with permanent workers.
Our hypotheses are the following:
Hypothesis 1. Career and traditional temporary workers, as they perceived themselves as low employable (career
and traditional) will report higher level of job insecurity than the rest of groups.
Hypothesis 2. Traditional temporary workers will express less life satisfaction than the rest of groups. Traditional
temporary workers will report less life satisfaction because they are not in their contract of preference, and in addition
as they are not employable it is likely that they cannot find a permanent job during a long time.
Hypothesis 3. Traditional temporary workers will show less well-being than the rest of groups, due to the same
arguments mentioned in the previous hypothesis.
RESULTS
Means and standard deviation are report in Table 1. The variables Crombach´s alpha were acceptable ( .79 - .78).
One-way ANOVA were carried out to explore differences attributed to contractual status on job insecurity, well-being
and life-satisfaction. Results are shown in Table 2. Post-hoc Tukey tests were carried out to obtain further information
about the differences, when significant.
Hypothesis 1 predicted that career and traditional temporary workers would have higher job insecurity than the rest
of groups. The results provide support for this hypothesis. Career and traditional temporary groups reported the
highest levels of job insecurity. Significant differences were obtained between traditional (p ≤0.001) and career (p
≤0.001) temporary groups and permanent group. In addition, significant differences were also obtained between
transitional temporary group and permanent group (p≤0.001), transitional temporary workers perceive higher job
insecurity than permanent workers. Also, as expected no differences were found between boundaryless temporaries
and permanent workers.
According to the second and third hypotheses, traditional temporaries had lower levels of life satisfaction and wellbeing than the other groups. The results provide support for these hypotheses, traditional temporary workers have
lower levels of life satisfaction and well-being than other groups. Significant differences were found between
traditional and transitional temporary groups in life satisfaction (p=0.026) and well-being (p=0.010) variables.
Moreover, the differences between transitional temporary group and permanent group are also significant in wellbeing variable (p=0.035), Transitional temporary workers perceive higher well-being than permanent workers.
Conforming our hypotheses, there are not significant differences between boundaryless, career and permanent
groups.
Table 1. Means and standard deviation.
TRADITIONAL TRANSITIONAL
MEAN
SD
MEAN
SD
Figure 2. Job insecurity, Life Satisfaction and Well being.
CAREER
MEAN
SD
BOUNDARYLESS PERMANENT
MEAN
SD
MEAN
SD
JOB INSECURITY
3,24
0,76
2,95
0,97
3,38
1,03
2,72
0,68
2,20
0,72
LIFE SATISFACTION
WELL-BEING
4,97
1,64
1,02
0,47
5,48
1,94
0,91
0,48
5,56
1,91
1,00
0,51
5,34
1,80
0,62
0,44
5,28
1,76
0,84
0,42
70
60
50
40
Table 2. Analisys of variance for contractual status.
30
Sum of squares
JOB
INSECURITY
LIFE
SATISFACTION
WELL-BEING
Between
groups
Within
groups
Total
Between
groups
Within
groups
Total
Between
groups
Within
groups
Total
*p = . 05 **p = . 01
gl
Mean Square
68,26
4
17,06
228,03
378
,60
296,29
382
7,25
4
1,81
276,88
375
,73
284,14
379
2,50
4
,62
69,95
373
,18
72,45
377
F
28,29**
S
20
sig.
=
=,001
10
0
2,45*
3,33*
,
04
TRADITIONAL
,
01
JOB INSECURITY
LIFE SATISFACTION
TRANSITIONAL
CAREER
WELL-BEING
BOUNDARYLESS
PERMANENT
Sample
The sample used in this study consisted of 385 employees from retail, healthcare and temporary
help service organizations.
Measures
The following variables were measured: type of contract, preference of contract, employability, job
insecurity (Cronbach´s alpha: .79), life satisfaction (Cronbach´s alpha: .78) and well-being
(Cronbach´s alpha: .79).
MISSING
4,7%
TRADITIONAL
14,5%
TRANSITIONAL
10,4%
CAREER
3,4%
DISCUSSION
BOUNDARYLESS
1,6%
PERMANENT
65,4%
The aim of the present paper is to study the perceptions of job insecurity and health-related
variables (well-being and life satisfaction) within different types of temporary workers and to
compare them to permanent workers.
Findings showed different levels of job insecurity among the different temporary employees
depending of the level of employability. These results generally support the hypothesis 1.
Ours hypotheses related to health-related outcomes were generally supported as well, traditional
temporaries demonstrating to have the lowest levels of well-being and life satisfaction.
The most important conclusion to be made is that temporary employees are not an homogeneous
group. Differences among temporary employees on employability and contract preference have
been found, and it has consequences on perceived job insecurity and health related-outcomes.
These findings support the distinction among temporary employees of four types of temporary
workers proposed by Marler et al. (1998): transitional, traditional, boundaryless and career.
These results showed both theoretical and practical implications. It seems that future research
should taken into consideration attitudes and perceptions of temporary employees rather than
objective measures such as contractual status so as to better understand attitudes and behaviors.
For instance preferred occupation could be another relevant variable to better analyse differences
among temporary and permanent employees.
In regards to the management of the temporary workforce some suggestions could derive from
these findings. Employability should be enhanced in order to reduce perceived job insecurity, and
avoid negative effects therefrom. In addition, employers should take into consideration if contractual
status matches to the lifestyle of their temporary employees.
REFERENCES
Aronsson, G. & Goransson, S. (1999). Permanent employment but not in a preferred occupation. Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology, 4, 2, 152-163.
Dieshenhouse, S. (1993, May 16). In a shaky Economy Even Professionals. The new York Times.
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.
Feldman, D., Doerpinghaus, H. & Turnley, W. (1994). Managing temporary workers: A permanent HRM challenge.
Organizational Dynamics, 23, 49-63.
Guest (2002). Employment contracts, the psychological contract and employee outcomes: An analysis and review of the
evidence. (Internal document).
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.
Isaksson, K.S. & Bellagh, K. (2002). Health problems and quitting among female “temps”. European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, 11, 1, 27-45.
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.
Marler, J., Milkovich, G. and barringer, M. (1998). “Boundaryless organizations and boundaryless careers: An
emerging market of high-skilled temporary work”. Paper presented to the Academy of management Annual
Conference, San Diego, August, 1998.
Marler, J., Woodard, M. and Milkovich, G.T. (2002). Boundaryless and traditional contingent employees: worlds
apart. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 425-453.
Pearce, J.L. (1998). Job insecurity is important, but not for the reasons you might think: the example of contingent
workers. Trends in Organizational Behaviour, 5, 2, 31-44.
Segal, L. M. & Sullivan, D. G. (1997). The growth of temporary services work. Journal of economic perspectives,
11, 2, 117-136.
Segal, L. M. (1996). Flexible employment: Composition and trends. Journal of Labor Research, 17, 4, 525-542