|
Article Excerpt
Along with the increased incidence of temporary employment throughout Europe (Brewster, Mayne, & Tregaskis, 1997), a growing body of psychological literature has warned against its detrimental effects for the individual. This has been described in the flexible firm model (Atkinson, 1984) where temporaries are associated with the organization's periphery, which, in turn, has been associated with less favourable job characteristics (e.g. Beard & Edwards, 1995; Saloniemi, Virtanen, & Vahtera, 2004; Millward & Brewerton, 1999). Furthermore, general theoretical frameworks (e.g. the vitamin model; Wart, 1994) include stressors that are exacerbated in temporary employment arrangements, the most prominent of which is job insecurity (BOssing, 1999; Klandermans & Van Vuuren, 1999; Pearce, 1998): temporaries as compared with permanents are consistently higher on job insecurity (De Witte & Naswall, 2003; Kinnunen & Natti, 1994; Parker, Griffin, Sprigg, & Wall, 2002). These observations have resulted in the suggestion of impaired well-being, and less desirable attitudes and behaviours among temporary employees.
However, studies have failed to establish a conclusive link between contract type and a range of outcomes, such as psychological well-being (Aronsson, Gusafsson, & Dallner, 2002; Paoli & Merllie, 2002; Sverke, Gallagher, & Hellgren, 2000), job satisfaction (De Witte & Naswall, 2003; Guest & Conway, 1997), organizational commitment (Pearce, 1993; Van Breukelen & Allegro, 2000), and self-rated performance (Van Breukelen & Allegro, 2000).
In addition, first evidence suggests job insecurity has a moderating rather than a mediating role between contract type and outcomes: job insecurity has been found problematic for permanents but not for temporaries. For example, when adding the interaction term between contract type and job insecurity in the studies of De Witte and Naswall (2003) and of Guest and Conway (2000), significant differences were found in the permanent group only: insecure permanents were less satisfied with their job, and less committed to their organization. Virtanen, Vahtera, Kivimaki, Pentii, and Ferrie (2002) as well as Sverke et al. (2000) in a similar way found a stronger relationship between high levels of job insecurity and a poorer health state among permanents as compared with temporaries.
Traditional psychological explanations for the consequences of temporary employment cannot account for these interaction effects, or for the absence of clear-cut contract-based differences. Accordingly, this paper aims to extend previous research (1) by providing an alternative to traditional stress theories, based on the concept of the psychological contract; and (2) by considering multiple outcomes: job satisfaction, life satisfaction, organizational commitment, and self-rated performance. These outcomes cover the four major categories of potential outcomes of job insecurity, as identified by Sverke, Hellgren, and Naswall (2002); the categories are distinguished based on the dichotomies immediate versus long-term reactions and individually versus organizationally oriented (see Table 1).
A psychological contract perspective
The psychological contract refers to 'the idiosyncratic set of reciprocal expectations held by employees concerning their obligations and their entitlements' (McLean, Parks, Kidder, & Gallagher, 1998, p. 698). During the last decade, it has captured the attention of organizational researchers, as its content has proved crucial in shaping employees' attitudes and behaviour, and in predicting employees' well-being (Anderson & Schalk, 1998). Moreover, the non-fulfilment or violation of the psychological contract has been found to elicit intense attitudinal and emotional responses (Robinson & Rousseau, 1994).
Much of the research into the content of the psychological contract has been based upon the distinction between transactional and relational psychological contracts (Rousseau, 1995; Millward & Brewerton, 2000). The relational psychological contract focuses upon socio-emotional exchange, with job security in exchange for loyalty as core elements. It includes dynamic and subjective content terms, and is long term in duration. The transactional psychological contract focuses upon economic and short-term exchange of benefits and contributions, with pay for attendance as prototypical example. Its content is precisely defined, and its time frame is finite and short-term.
Temporary employment: A psychological contract perspective
The employment contract has particular resonance within this context. Rousseau and Schalk (2000) argue that the formal employment contract gives the framework for, and defines the zone of negotiability of, the psychological contract. More specifically, contract duration is considered crucial in differentiating relational from transactional psychological contracts (Rousseau, 1995). Similarly, in their theoretical contribution, McLean Parks et al. (1998) have linked the descriptions of relational and transactional psychological contracts to different types of employees. At the most aggregate level, they suggest that transactional psychological contracts dominate amongst temporary workers, while relational psychological contracts are thought to be dominant for permanents. Empirical studies on the content of the psychological contract align with these expectations: temporaries perceive their psychological contract as narrower (Coyle-Shapiro & Kessler, 2002; Van Dyne & Ang, 1998) and more transactional (Millward & Brewerton, 1999) than permanents. Unlike permanents, they may even perceive their psychological contract as transactional rather than relational (Millward & Hopkins, 1998). Hence, we hypothesize the following:
Hypothesis 1a. The psychological contract of permanents includes a higher number of relational promises as compared with the psychological contract of temporaries.
Hypothesis 1b. The psychological contract of temporaries includes a higher number of transactional promises as compared with the psychological contract of permanents.
This psychological contract perspective may explain the absence of clear-cut effects of contract type on psychological outcomes. It suggests that permanents and temporaries hold different expectations with regard to their employment relationship. Therefore, the impact of temporary versus permanent employment should be assessed taking the appropriate set of expectations as a reference. This implies that temporary employment may not be perceived as inferior to, but rather as different from, permanent employment. Accordingly, it does not follow that predictions on how contract type relates to outcomes are to the disadvantage of temporaries. Rather, job reports of temporaries and permanents may not yield significant or meaningful differences. This interpretation is at variance with common expectations on the detrimental impact of temporary employment for the individual. We will assess the extent to which we can accept this hypothesis of adverse effects. When not validated, this may underline the importance of the psychological contract framework.
Hypothesis 2. Temporaries as compared with permanents report lower job satisfaction, life satisfaction, organizational commitment, and performance.
Job insecurity: A psychological contract perspective
Psychological contract theory defines job security as a key element of the relational psychological contract (Millward & Brewerton, 2000). Consequently, job insecurity represents a major violation for those holding predominantly relational expectations. In this regard, Pearce (1998) and Rousseau (1995) suggest that adverse reactions could be related to an unwelcome change in the psychological contract, rather than...
|
