Insecurity or Freedom? A thematic analysis on the
experiences of cold sales employees
Sander Mand
10560939
University of Amsterdam Master Thesis M.S.c Sociology
Social Problems & Social Policy 10-07-2017 Supervisor: Frank Tros Second Supervisor: René Hulst Word Count: 23.800
Summary
Cold sales employees in The Netherlands are often employed on zero-hour contracts and their compensation is largely comprised of bonuses. This can create income insecurity. The
negative health consequences of insecure labour are well known (Chia, König, Maloles, Probst & Reisel, 2010) and due to the growing number of Dutch employees that are in an insecure positions, unions are calling for policies that balance the security needs of the employees with the flexibility needs of the employers (Aussems, Jansma & Klein, 2016). Before such policy can be created, more has to be known about what influences the
experiences of sales employees in insecure positions. Current understandings of insecurity often focus on labour arrangements and demographical characteristics alone, however employees’ work experiences are shaped by more than these factors. The question this
research will answer is: “what mechanisms internal to companies influence the experiences of sales employees in insecure forms of labour, and how do they impact these experiences.”
In order to answer this question, indicators for precariousness, positive feelings towards the labour, the Job Demands-Resources model and organizational culture have been combined into a theoretical framework. The interaction between these indicators has been analysed to uncover the internal mechanisms and answer the research question.
The data consists of 12 semi-structured interviewees. These interviews were held with the employees of 4 sales companies. A thematic analysis has been used. This uncovered 3 main themes and 2 subthemes.
The data uncovered three main mechanisms internal to companies impacting the experiences of insecurity in sales employees. These are:
1. Interaction between the organizational culture and the Job Demands-Resources model creates a shared reality among sales employees. This shared reality impacts how sales employees experience their insecure position.
2. The internalization of dominant norms, values and beliefs. This internalization can create an internal locus of control, which impacts the experiences of insecurity. 3. The internalization of a social reality where insecure labour is portrayed as a positive,
The results show that the interaction between the indicators of precariousness, the organizational culture and the Job Demands-Resources model can be used to influence employees’ experiences in insecure positions. This should be taken into consideration when policy is devised. These results are based on the experiences of relatively experienced sales employees. Further research should focus on the experiences of less experienced employees.
List of Contents
Introduction ... 7
Theoretical Framework ... 10
The Precariat ... 10
The Job Demands-Resources Model ... 11
Organizational Culture ... 12
Summary ... 14
Operationalization ... 15
Income Insecurity ... 15
Precariousness ... 15
1. Anxiety over Income Insecurity ... 16
2. Lack of a Work-Based Identity ... 16
3. Inability to form Trusting Relationships ... 17
4. Low Job-Fulfilment ... 17
Positive Feelings towards the Labour Arrangement ... 18
1. Freedom due to Flexibility ... 18
2. Increased Control over Work-Life Balance ... 18
3. Positive Challenge ... 18 JD-R ... 19 Job-Demands ... 19 Job-Resources ... 20 Organizational Culture ... 21 Norms ... 22 Values ... 22 Beliefs ... 22 Analytical Framework ... 22 Research Questions ... 24 Methodology ... 25 Research Design ... 25 Sampling Approach ... 25 Thematic Analysis ... 26
The Researcher’s Position ... 26
Dataset ... 30
Table 1. Description Dataset ... 30
Precarious Employees and Shared Demands ... 31
Shared Resources ... 32
Organizational Culture ... 32
Description Individual Companies ... 32
Table 2. Description Individual Companies ... 32
Contrast Company A & Company B ... 34
Results ... 36
Thematic Analysis ... 36
1. Home Base ... 37
Mechanisms 1. “Shared Goals, Shared Reality” ... 42
1.1 Just Friends ... 43
2. Work Hard – Play Hard ... 51
Mechanism 2. “It’s Up To You” ... 55
2.1 Self-Confidence ... 56
3. Adventure over Security ... 60
Mechanism 3 “Self-Selection” ... 65
Conclusion ... 65
Introduction
Cold sales employees in The Netherlands are often subject to labour arrangements associated with precariousness. Zero hour and temporary contracts are widely used, targets are imposed on workers that have to be met if they want to remain employed, work-related travel time is often not compensated meaning large amounts of work-for-work, bonuses are used as incentives; the employment is uncertain, unpredictable, and risky for the worker. This is the type of work that Kalleberg (2009) defines as precarious.
Kalleberg (2009) and Standing (2014) both argue that this type of work has
consequences for the workers that reach beyond their employment. The uncertainty generated by these forms of employment influences their personal life, creating stress and putting strain on their social life. Standing (2014) argues that precarious work leads to a short-sighted vision, impairs quality of life, increases sickness and decreases general fulfilment. However, contractual relationships are far from the only work related aspect that impact these
experiences, as Standing himself recognizes.
The possibilities offered toward self-actualization and personal development, a work-based identity, cooperation; these are all subjects that have become increasingly important for both employers and employees (Rose, 1999). Standing (2014) sees these as important factors influencing workers’ lives. Companies within the sales sector that employ comparable contracts, targets and other tactics that might increase precariousness among their employees do not have to offer the same possibilities in this regard.
One model that can be used in dealing with this is the Jobs Demands-Resources model (JD-R). This model sees job related stress as the result of the interaction between the demands and resources offered to employees within a company. Job demands are all factors that can cause stress in employees, job resources are all factors that help employees deal with these demands. The balance between the demands and resources in a company, affects the
employees’ productivity and motivation in their work. The balance impacts the worker more than that, however, as it also affects their level of job-satisfaction, feelings of personal development and alienation (Bakker & Demerouti, 2006).
There seems to be little empirical data applying the JD-R model to sales employees, however a study on the effects of JD-R on Dutch call centre employees might provide insights. The findings are not representative for sales employees, but the type of work is in some ways comparable; high levels of performance monitoring, stress, target pressure etc.
commitment/satisfaction found that offered job resources were positively correlated with higher levels of both (Bakker, Demerouti & Schaufeli, 2003). Another empirical study has shown that lowered job satisfaction experienced by American workers in flexible forms of labour, increases the associated feelings of anxiety, negative emotions, changes of burn-out and lowers productivity (Chia, König, Maloles, Probst & Reisel, 2010). The negative
psychological effects of job insecurity are further supported by a Swedish study, which finds that the negative health impact on workers is comparable between those that are actually in an insecure position and those that only believe they are (Hammarström, Janlert & Virtanen, 2011).
However, not all studies support the claim that flexible, atypical work has negative consequences on employees. A study on pharmacists in the UK found that 46 percent deliberately chose for atypical, flexible work contracts. This was found to have no negative effect on their work experience and, in some cases, had a positive effect. These workers are highly skilled and enjoy a high level employability, this is likely to have a strong influence on their experience as they are more likely to find new employment if they need to
(Budjanovcanin, Clinton, Guest & Oakley, 2006). Further studies have shown that different types of employees can value certain types of flexible work for different reasons. Students, caregivers, highly educated professionals; these are all people that can benefit from flexible labour hours, giving them greater freedom or a better work-life balance (Dekker & Olsthoorn, 2011). In short, flexible contracts and labour are not an inherently negative force on workers’ lives. The given explanations for why these workers do not experience their position as precarious, however, often seem to be external from the companies for which they work; rather being demographical characteristics. The studies on the effects of the JD-R on employees in insecure positions given above (Bakker, Demerouti & Schaufeli, 2003; Chia, König, Maloles, Probst & Reisel, 2010) and the importance of how they perceive their own position (Hammarström, Janlert & Virtanen, 2011) suggest that there are mechanisms within companies that affect employees’ experiences in insecure forms of labour too.
The general question this research will attempt to answer is “what mechanisms internal to companies influence the experiences of sales employees in insecure forms of labour, and how do they impact these experiences.” In the current economic climate, the trend of flexible labour is unlikely to retreat, especially in a field like sales. Understanding the mechanisms affecting those in insecure labour can be beneficial. Unions are calling for policy in which the flexibility needs of employers and the security needs for employees are balanced. They believe that avenues for employees’ growth and development should be a part of this
(Aussems, Jansma & Klein, 2016). Looking into the mechanisms that influence employees in precarious or insecure jobs, and taking into account job resources such as training
possibilities, can help in these policy developments. In an attempt to answer this question, a thematic analysis has been carried out on the experiences of 12 sales employees of 4 different companies.
Theoretical Framework
The theoretical framework of this study includes the concepts of the precariat, the Job Demands-Resources model and aspects of organizational culture. The precariat will provide the framework by which employees’ experiences are assessed. Indicators from the Job Demands-Resources Model and organizational culture will be combined to create potential mechanisms internal to companies affecting these experiences. This framework will provide the basis on which a thematic analysis is performed.
The terms ‘indicator’ and ‘mechanism’ are to be separated. An indicator will refer to a specific part of a concept. These will be made for precariousness, employees’ positive feelings regarding their situation, job-demands and job-resources and organizational culture. These can be found in the chapter “Operationalization”. Mechanisms will be created out of the interaction between these indicators, i.e. mechanisms refer to how the separate indicators interact to impact the experiences of sales employees. These will be created in the chapter “Thematic Analysis”, and can be found after the analysis of each individual theme and in the conclusion.
The Precariat
According to Standing, the precariat is a new class defined by uncertainty. He argues that the use of flexible labour creates income insecurity, a lack of a work-based identity, a lack in personal development and general uncertainty about the future in those that are subject to it. This uncertainty has an impact on many aspects of the workers’ lives, leading to a
‘precariatised mind’. He argues that those in the precariat are defined by “’short-termism’, which could evolve into mass incapacity to think long term, induced by the low probability of personal progress or building a career” (Standing, 2014, p31). He goes on to argue that the precariatised mind is fed by fear and anger, due in part to their inability to form trusting relationships with colleagues. Their jobs are instrumental and flexible, giving them no meaning or identity, leading to feelings of alienation and stagnation. They are more likely to experience mental health problems, substance abuse and low job-satisfaction (Standing, 2014).
However in his analysis, Standing continuously paints the precariat with a broad brush. He combines all indicators which lead to precariousness. Flexible labour, insecurity, stagnant personal development, alienation – these are all taken together. He gives little attention to the separate mechanisms within insecure or flexible forms of labour influencing the experiences of employees. One critic of Standing’s work, Breman (2013), argues that there are a variety of forms of precariousness which are not all comparable. To add to this criticism, Dekker and Olstrom (2011) argue that insights into the social effects of insecure labour cannot be decontextualized, i.e.; be separated from the type of flexibility (e.g. labour contract), the employees socioeconomic position, their demographical position, or societal context of the labour (i.e. the specific sector and related institutional factors).
It is important to note that Standing (2014) himself and multiple other researchers (Budjanovcanin, Clinton, Guest & Oakley, 2006; Dekker & Olstrom, 2011) argue that not everyone in insecure forms of labour experiences their position as precarious. In the review of empirical data above, it is clear that people with higher levels of education and high levels of employability are less likely to feel precarious or experience negative consequences due to their flexible labour arrangement (Budjanovcanin, Clinton, Guest & Oakley, 2006).
Furthermore, there are many people that benefit in certain ways from flexible labour; students can plan their work around their study or unemployed people can use it as a way to regain employment (Dekker & Olsthoorn, 2011). However, these seem to be demographical
characteristics of employees and external from the company in which they are employed. It is likely that there are mechanisms within individual companies that influence the experiences of precariousness among employees too. Standing’s (2014) conceptualization of the precariat alone does not provide an adequate framework to delineate and research these potential internal mechanisms.
The Job Demands-Resources Model
One model that can help in researching these internal mechanisms is the Job Resources-Demands model. A key assumption in JD-R is that all indicators relating to stress in a particular occupation or field can be classified into two categories, demands and job-resources. The balance or imbalance between these categories determines the level of work related stress employees experience, both at work and in their personal life. As mentioned before, job-demands are all those physical, psychological and social factors that create a
psychological cost for employees. When these demands are too high, they can become stressors. These stressors influence employees’ productivity, but their impact goes beyond their work impacting the personal lives of employees. Job-resources are all those physical, psychological and social indicators that help employees in dealing with the demands.
Resources can be located at the organizational level, in interpersonal and social relationships, in the organization of the work or at the level of the task. They decrease workers’ cynicism, increase their intrinsic and extrinsic motivation and therefor productivity. Job-resources, however, are not only important because they help employees to achieve their work goals. They are important in their own right, as they can stimulate personal growth, learning and general fulfilment (Bakker & Demerouti, 2006). The benefit of using the JD-R is that it allows for researching the mechanisms influencing employees’ experiences of precariousness
internal to companies. This is because it can be used to look at individual indicators within companies creating stress in employees, or helping them deal with it, which can combine to create mechanisms influencing workers’ experiences. The demands employees face, and the resources they can use to deal with them, are likely to be influenced by the organizational culture.
Organizational Culture
Employees’ experiences due to insecurity, and the job-resources and job-demands they have, will all likely be affected by the culture within a company. Research has found that
organizational culture can either increase commitment to the organization, job-satisfaction and motivation or increase job insecurity, stress and high turnover rates (Balthazard, Cooke & Potter, 2006). The latter are all indicators associated with insecure labour and precariousness (Bakker, Demerouti & Schaufeli, 2003; Standing, 2014). The culture within a company can be described as the core-values, norms and beliefs held by its employees. It is a set of beliefs, norms, values and symbols used in and by organizations and management to structure their employees’ activities (Mundzir, 2016). Important norms often exist around performance, quality and flexibility. Central values and modes of conduct, formal or informal, can form the basis of the development of norms that approve or disapprove of certain attitudes and beliefs held by employees (O’Reily, 2008). These beliefs, norms and values can be internalized by employees (Bothma & Roodt, 2012). The strength of the organizational culture can be described as the level to which employees internalize the dominant norms and beliefs
(O’Reily, 2008) which in turn can increase altruistic behaviour, or a social support in dealing with job-demands, among employees (Bothma & Roodt, 2012).
In this sense, the culture within in a company can influence experiences of insecurity and precariousness. If a culture values social support, employees might be more likely to receive it. Contrarily, if a company values competition over support, employees might receive less support from their co-workers. Furthermore, if a company values personal development, employees might be more likely to receive training possibilities to help them deal with their job demands. In this way, the culture within a company is likely to influence the resources and demands employees receive or have to deal with; in turn possibly affecting the
experiences they have due to income insecurity and precariousness. The impact of culture goes beyond this, however, because employees internalize certain modes of thinking.
The internalization of norms and beliefs is dependent on the social identification of the employee with the group (Bothma & Roodt, 2012). A lack of a work-based identity is,
according to Standing (2014), a characteristic of precariousness: “one way of looking at the precariat is seeing how people come to be doing insecure forms of labour that are unlikely to assist them to build a desirable identity…” (Standing, 2014, p27). Furthermore he claims that the inability to form trusting relationships with co-workers is a defining feature of the
precariat (Standing, 2014). A work-based identity, a socially supportive environment and the ability to form trusting relationships are all intertwined.
A work-based identity is a socially constructed conception of self, centred on ones’ employment. This identity influences how employees behave. A strong identity makes it more likely that employees internalize the core values, beliefs, norms and modes of conduct that are expected within a company. ‘Under-identification’ – i.e. alienation – by employees with their role and work within a company can lead to absenteeism, high employee turn-over and low performance rates. This alienation can happen on two levels – personal alienation, meaning that the work does not satisfy an individual’s salient needs and expectations and social alienation, where the individual lacks social connection with colleagues (Bothma & Roodt, 2012).
These problems can be countered by companies by bettering their employees' experiences, engaging their mind and enforcing social identification to give employees a ‘perception of oneness’ with the organization and group (Bothma & Roodt, 2012). These measures are all comparable to the job resources described in the JD-R, e.g. ‘engaging the mind’ can be done through training sessions and ‘enforcing social identification’ is related to
consequences often associated with insecure labour are dependent on how the employees themselves view their insecure position (Hammarström, Janlert & Virtan, 2011). If a company values personal responsibility, installs a sense of confidence in their employees over their own abilities and values flexibility then there is a possibility these beliefs are internalized by their employees. This can mean that the employees have more confidence in their own abilities, making them less anxious over income insecurity. Conversely it might increase job-related stress, as employees might hold themselves responsible for their inability to perform at a certain standard. Furthermore, it could impact the value employees ascribe to security. Research has also shown that individuals that have strong feelings of belonging to a group have greater feelings of agency and are more goal-oriented (Besta, Blazek & Mattingly, 2016), possibly negating feelings of not being in control over one’s own employment. The way in which individual companies shape their organizational culture and enforce
identification with it might differ substantially, possibly creating differences in experiences relating to precariousness and insecurity among their employees.
Finally, the norms and values held by a company can affect which potential employees they hire and which not (Björklund, Bäckström & Wolgast, 2012). This means that the values and norms within a company might influence what type of employee works there, which can mean that employees might be selected for the value they attribute to security. To illustrate, within the sales sector it is often thought that extroverted and confident people make the best employees (Grant, 2012) and the personality of a potential employee is influential in whether or not they are hired (Anderson, Carlson & Monié, 2015). This is important, as Standing himself recognizes that personality traits might can affect the experiences an individual has in insecure labour, saying that certain types of people experience less negative feelings due to their insecure position (Standing, 2014). It might be true that the selection process in hiring sales personnel creates a group of employees that experience insecurity in a different way than the general population.
Summary
To summarize, the conceptualization of the precariat alone is not an adequate framework in which sales employees’ experiences of insecurity can be explained. The JD-R model and the organizational culture are likely to impact employees’ experiences. How the different
indicators interact to create mechanisms affecting experiences of precariousness, or lack thereof, is analysed in a thematic analyses below using the experiences of 12 sales employees.
Operationalization
In order to research the potential mechanisms affecting employees’ experiences of insecurity, it is important to clearly differentiate between the relevant indicators. In this chapter,
insecurity, precariousness, the JD-R and the relevant aspects of organizational culture will be operationalized.
Income Insecurity
Zero-hour and temporary contracts provide workers with less protection than fixed-hour, long-term contracts. Within the sales sector the insecurity generated by zero-hour and temporary contracts is amplified by the use of targets; a failure to meet targets can end in termination of contract. For this reason, this study focuses on workers that are employed on the basis of zero-hour and temporary contracts; job demands specific to this work are more likely to generate stress and anxiety for them. It is important to keep in mind that for certain employees the flexibility associated with zero-hour contracts can be a source of freedom and control (Dekker & Olsthoorn, 2011). The potential benefits and the stress and uncertainty they generate, however, are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
In sales companies, furthermore, bonuses are often used as an incentive to motivate employees. These often comprise a large part of employees' compensation (Lorimer, Sinha & Zoltners, 2012). The resulting fluctuations in received wage or salary can cause large amounts of uncertainty, especially for employees that have a low level of education and pay (Standing, 2014).
Taken together, the use of zero-hour and temporary contracts and the use of bonuses in the sector can create income insecurity for sales employees. From this point forward, income insecurity will refer to the insecurity generated by zero-hour and temporary contracts and the insecurity generated by the use of bonuses.
Precariousness
In order to understand the experiences of sales employees in insecure positions,
precariousness has to be clearly defined. Multiple indicators of precariousness have been taken from the literature. Because this research attempts to understand the mechanisms impacting these experiences, and because not all employees in insecure positions experience
their position as precarious, indicators for positive feelings regarding their labour arrangement have also been created.
In this research, precariousness refers to the experiences of employees. It does not refer to the contract they have with the company or the use of bonuses as these are defined under income insecurity. The indicators have been selected for their relationship with aspects of the JD-R and organizational culture.
1. Anxiety over Income Insecurity
The first indicator of precariousness is experienced anxiety due to income insecurity. Insecure income is a central part of precariousness (Kalleberg, 2009; Standing, 2014), meaning that if there are mechanisms internal to companies affecting employees’ feelings of precariousness; these are likely to affect their anxiety over income insecurity too. The negative health
consequences are well documented (Chia, König, Maloles, Probst & Reisel, 2010). However, not all employees in an insecure position might experience anxiety over it (Budjanovcanin, Clinton, Guest & Oakley, 2006; Dekker & Olsthoorn, 2011) and their assessment of their own position is vital to these experiences (Hammarström, Janlert & Virtanen, 2011). In order to understand employees’ experiences, indicators for anxiety have been taken from
psychological tests. The Beck Anxiety Inventory (Beck, Brown, Epstein & Steer, 1988) and the Anxiety Stress Scales (Gomez, 2013) have provided indicators which have been used in interviews to asses experienced anxiety. These indicators are, ‘difficulty relaxing’, ‘hard to wind down’, ‘worried’ and ‘fear of losing control’. The indicators have been chosen due to similarity in symptoms associated with precariousness. The scales used have been deemed valid by research in assessing anxiety (Gomez, 2013).
2. Lack of a Work-Based Identity
The second indicator of precariousness is the lack of a work-based identity. Standing (2014) argues that the lack of a work-based identity is a part of precarious labour, and it takes a central part in this research. The insecurity employees face in precarious forms of labour creates a situation in which workers are less likely to create a socially constructed perception of self-centred around their employment. The lack of a work-based identity can increase feelings of alienation and lowers the level to which employees internalize the norms and beliefs within a company (Bothma & Roodt, 2012). In order to use the lack of work-based
identity as an indicator, it first has to be clear what a work-based identity entails. As described in the theoretical framework, a work-based identity is a socially constructed conception of self, centred on an individual’s employment. This identity is dependent on the internalization of norms, values and beliefs commonly held within a company (Bothma & Roodt, 2012) which in turn are dependent on the organizational culture (Mundzir, 2016; O’Reily, 2008). What constitutes norms, values and beliefs, is described in the operationalization of
organizational culture below. The level to which employees internalize these norms, values and beliefs can be used as an indicator of precariousness, where low internalization is the lack of a work-based identity. Furthermore, an identity can only be constructed in relation to that which it is not (Gay, 1996), e.g. by defining the group versus those that are not in it.
Employees describing themselves as a work-based group is taken as a sign of them having a work-based identity.
3. Inability to form Trusting Relationships
The third indicator of precariousness is the inability to form trusting relationships with co-workers. This indicator is closely linked with the lack of a work-based identity, as feelings of belonging to a group and forming close relationships are intertwined. The inability to form trusting relationships with co-workers is a part of precariousness according to Standing (2014), as their insecure position makes it difficult to form long-lasting relationships. It is included in this research as the ability to form trusting relationships might differ from company to company. Trusting relationships among employees combat work-related stress (Fox, Koesten, Radel & Spangler, 2012), increase job-satisfaction (Bothma & Roodt, 2012) and prevent feelings of alienation (Standing, 2014). The ability to form trusting relationships will be closely linked to the level of social support employees can expect to receive in facing their job-demands. This will be addressed further in the operationalisation of the JD-R. The level of trusting relationships between employees can be measured by feelings of friendship, closeness, and trust between them.
4. Low Job-Fulfilment
The fourth indicator of precariousness is a low level of job-fulfilment. Employees in insecure forms of labour often experience lower levels of job-fulfilment (Chia, König, Maloles, Probst & Reisel, 2010; Standing, 2014). The reason that this is included as an indicator is that organizational culture and the JD-R model both impact job-fulfilment (Bothma & Roodt,
2012; Bakker & Demerouti, 2006). This intersection might provide insights into the mechanisms influencing experiences of precariousness.
Positive Feelings towards the Labour Arrangement
Because this research attempts to understand the mechanisms affecting experiences due to insecure labour, and not all employees in these forms of labour experience it negatively, indicators for positive feelings towards this labour arrangement have also been created.
1. Freedom due to Flexibility
The first positive indicator is a feeling of freedom due to flexibility. For some individuals, flexible labour provides a sense of freedom rather than insecurity (Standing, 2014).
Employees that enjoy a high level of employability and confidence in their abilities are more likely to associate feelings of freedom with flexibility over insecurity (Budjanovcanin, Clinton, Guest & Oakley, 2006) The reason why this indicator has been included, is because the JD-R can increase or decrease feelings of competence (Bakker & Demerouti, 2006) and the organizational culture and level of internalization of it, can influence the value employees ascribe to it (Bothma & Roodt, 2012). This intersection might provide insights into the mechanisms influencing feelings of precariousness.
2. Increased Control over Work-Life Balance
The second positive indicator is an increased feeling of control over work-life balance. For certain employees in flexible, insecure forms of labour it can give a greater feeling of control over their work-life balance (Dekker & Olstrom, 2011).
3. Positive Challenge
The final positive indicator are feelings of being challenged. For some employees, the use of targets and bonuses and the income insecurity might provide a feeling of being challenged. This might be valued over income security to a certain degree by some employees. The employees’ experiences of targets and bonuses are likely affected by the resources offered to deal with them, the job-demands increasing stress over them (Bakker & Demerouti, 2006), the level of identification with the group (Besta, Blazek & Mattingly, 2016) and the norms, values and beliefs they internalize (Bothma & Roodt, 2012).
JD-R
Multiple indicators from the JD-R model are used in order to analyse their effects on experiences of employees. The chosen indicators have been taken from literature and are included on their intersection with indicators of precariousness and for organizational culture, which are later.
Job-Demands
1. Target Pressure
The first job-demand included is that of target pressure. The use of targets can induce stress in sales employees (Bakker, Demerouti & Schaufeli, 2003; Standing, 2014). Because it can induce stress, it can be classified as a job demand (Bakker & Demerouti, 2006). The stress caused by target pressure will be amplified for sales employees, as their employment is often contingent upon their ability to meet them. The experiences of employees over this demand are likely to be affected by the job resources such as training offered to them (Bakker & Demerouti, 2006), the level of identification with the work-group creating feelings of agency and goal orientation (Besta, Blazek & Mattingly, 2016) and internalization of norms and beliefs around their usage (Bothma & Roodt, 2012). The target pressure faced by employees is likely depend on the organizational culture. The norms around the use of targets, the expected behaviour toward them of employees and the value ascribed to them will all likely impact the employees’ experiences of it. This might differ substantially between companies
2. Performance Monitoring
The second job-demand is performance monitoring. Performance monitoring can create feelings of alienation (Standing, 2014) and create stress in employees (Bakker, Demerouti & Schaufeli, 2003), making it a job-demand (Bakker & Demerouti, 2006). Due to the use of targets and workers’ employment being contingent upon their ability to reach them, the experiences of income insecurity are likely affected by the monitoring of performance as underperformance might end their employment. In this research, employees face this demand in companies where their average sales are tracked and underperformance can lead to
termination of employment. The application of performance monitoring can differ substantially among companies.
3. Unsupportive Social System
The third job demand is an unsupportive social system. The lack of social support can reduce employees’ ability in dealing with their demands, making them less resistant to stress. If the social system within a company displays hostile tendencies, it can itself induce stress making it a job demand (Bakker & Demerouti, 2006). A socially unsupportive is system is also less likely make employees identify with the group (Besta, Blazek & Mattingly, 2016), making them less likely to internalize dominant norms and beliefs (Bothma & Roodt, 2012) and lowering feelings of agency (Besta, Blazek & Mattingly, 2016). An unsupportive social system in this research is defined as the lack of altruistic behaviour among employees in performing their work, a lack of trust between the leadership and their employees and a lacking interest in the employees’ development. This can differ substantially between companies.
Job-Resources
1. Training
The first job resource is the training employees receive. Training possibilities can give
employees greater feelings of competence and reduce stress over job demands, making it a job resource. (Bakker & Demerouti, 2006). The level of competence an employee feels impacts the stress they feel due to insecurity; those that do not feel insecure experience less stress over their situation (Hammarström, Janlert & Virtanen, 2011) meaning that training will impact experiences of precariousness. Training of employees can differ substantially between companies. There are different types of training employed by companies, those geared
towards teaching employees sales techniques and those geared towards norm, value and belief internalization. Both can be found to differing degrees in all companies included in this research. The training provided to employees intersects with the company culture, as the importance attributed to them and their substance are dependent on the values and beliefs held within each company. This will be made clear later on.
2. Supportive Social System
A supportive social system is a job resource; it can help employees deal with the stress caused by the demands they face (Bakker & Demerouti, 2006). Social support, or altruistic behaviour among employees in carrying out their work, increases group-feelings, feelings of agency (Besta, Blazek & Mattingly, 2016) and norm internalization (Bothma & Roodt, 2012). Identification with the work-group, norm, value and belief internalization and social support are all likely to interact and impact experiences of sales employees in insecure positions.
3. Mentoring
The final job resource included in this research is that of mentoring. Mentoring refers to the interaction between experienced employees, with less experienced employees, where the former supports the latter. It is associated with better resistance to job-related stress, better personal development and higher productivity. Mentoring can be done formally and
informally, through coaching, constructive feedback, social support and expressing trust in the less experienced employee (Chen, Han, Hays, Lin & Qian, 2014). Because it helps in dealing with job demands and work related stress, it can be classified as a job resource (Bakker & Demerouti, 2006). Mentoring can be done by employees in leading roles, or simply more experienced employees. The way in which employees are mentored can differ substantially between companies, possibly affecting experiences due to income insecurity and of
precariousness.
Taken together, the aspects of the JD-R described above will be used in uncovering what mechanism affect employees’ experiences due to insecurity.
Organizational Culture
The organizational culture in sales companies is composed on the fundamental norms, values and beliefs held in it. Controlling the organizational culture is the most effective way of controlling sales employees’ behaviour. It impacts how employees perceive and interpret a given situation (Madhani, 2016); meaning it can influence how employees perceive and interpret the job demands they face, the insecurity their employment can generate and the value they attribute to these indicators. Organizational culture is often used as a control mechanism by management for these reasons (Madhani, 2016). In the thematic analysis the impact of organizational culture becomes clear; where it is often referred to as employees’ ‘mentality’ or ‘mind-set’.
The resources offered to employees, the job demands they face, the insecurity they cause and the employees’ perception on these indicators are all likely affected by the organizational culture. This intersection has been made clear earlier, so here only an operationalization of norms, values and beliefs is given.
Norms
Norms are prescriptions of behaviour within a certain social system. They are an inferred perception on the behaviour of others, which can then structure the behaviour of the observer. After norms become accepted and the prescribed behaviour becomes socially routinized, they become social practices (Frese, 2015). Because norms structure behaviour, they are likely to influence social support among employees, the mentoring and training they receive, the way in which they deal with demands such as target pressure, the expectations of others’ behaviour etc. In this manner, the norms within a company will impact experiences due to income
insecurity.
Values
Values are related to what is considered morally good and bad. They go beyond norms, in that they do not merely prescribe behaviour but those that hold them identify with their moral value. Values can structure employees’ modes of thinking (Frese, 2015). They too impact behaviour and relationships among employees, impacting experiences due to income
insecurity in the same manner. Because of the identification with them, however, they might impact experiences due to insecurity in another way too. If a company values personal responsibility in achieving targets for example, employees might internalize this value and hold it over stress induced by target pressure; or it might cause them additional anxiety due to feeling unable to request support.
Beliefs
Finally, commonly held beliefs within a company structure the behaviour and modes of thinking of employees (Madhani, 2016). As mentioned before, employees’ perceptions on their own insecurity are important in the stress or anxiety they experience over it
(Hammarström, Janlert & Virtanen, 2011). If, for example, a commonly held belief is that employees themselves are in control over their performance, and this belief has been internalized, then it might reduce anxiety over income insecurity due to feeling in control. Conversely, it might increase experienced anxiety over income insecurity – employees might attribute failures due to factors they are unable to control to their own inadequacy.
Summary Analytical Framework
To summarize, indicators for precariousness, positive feelings towards the labour, the JD-R and organizational culture have been created. The help in understanding the proposed relationships between these indicators, a visual representation is given below. Each square
represents a set of indicators. The arrows represents the possible relationships between the indicators. How these indicators, and the interaction between them, combine to form mechanisms impacting employees’ experiences is analysed in the thematic analysis. These mechanisms can be found in the conclusion of the study.
Indicators precariousness: anxiety over income insecurity; lack of work-based identity; inability to form trusting relationships; low job-fulfilment
Indicators positive feelings towards labour arrangement: Freedom due to flexibility; feeling of increased control over work-life balance; feelings of being positively challenged
Indicators Job-Demands Target -Pressure Unsupportive Social System Performance Monitoring Income Insecurity Indicators Job-Resources Training Supportive Social System Mentoring
The dominant norms, values and beliefs within the company, i.e. the organizational culture, and the level of internalization of these by employees
Research Questions
In the introduction, the general question of this research has been stated. This general question is “what mechanisms internal to companies influence the experiences of sales employees in insecure forms of labour, and how do they impact these experiences.” In order to answer this question, several sub-questions based on the theoretical framework have to be answered. These questions are answered throughout the analysis of the themes itself.
1. How do sales employees experience their own income insecurity?
2. Do sales employees experience their position as precarious?
3. How do sales employees deal with their insecure position and job-demands?
4. What is the impact of job-resources on the sales employees’ experiences?
5. What does the organizational culture in each company look like?
6. To what level do sales employees internalize the dominant norms, values and beliefs held in their company and how does this impact their experiences?
7. How does the organizational culture affect the selection of new employees?
8. How do the factors of organizational culture and the JD-R model interact?
If themes answer all these questions, together they will provide all the information needed to delineate what mechanisms influence the experiences of precariousness and how they do it, i.e. answering the primary research question.
Methodology
In this chapter the research methodology is outlined. The research design, sampling approach and method of analysis are all presented here. The researcher’s position and potential
assumption are reflected on. After this section, the dataset is described. Research Design
In order to answer the research questions, a comparative design has been used. The objective was to contrast the experiences of employees working in different companies with varying organizational cultures and indicators of the JD-R so that mechanisms impacting experiences of insecurity and precariousness could be delineated. More information on the research population can be found below under the header ‘Data Description’.
Because personal experiences and feelings take a prominent role in this research, semi-structured interviews have been used. These interviews have conducted with usage of an interview guide, which can be found in the appendix. By using a list of open questions the interviews could focus on answering the research questions, while still allowing room for deviation and serendipity. This technique also allowed for further explanation and follow-up questions if needed, making it an effective approach towards researching the subjective experiences of employees. The interviews focused not only on the participants personal experiences of precariousness and income insecurity but also on their feelings toward the resources offered to them, the demands they have to deal with and the organizational culture within their company.
Sampling Approach
The sample used is relatively small at n=12, due to the qualitative nature of the research. The method used to gain access to the interviewees is a snowball approach. The researcher has used personal contacts within a field marketing companies to get in contact with employees of one company. After this initial contact had been established, the participants were asked to provide more contacts within the same or different companies. Through this method contact has been made with the employees of 4 different field marketing bureaus.
The decision to use snowball sampling was made after other approaches failed. Initially, contact was made with multiple field marketing bureaus in an attempt to gain access to their employees, i.e. a sampling frame. These attempts failed. The sampling population became
one company were used to start the snowball approach. The sampling approach has led to a limitation in the conclusion of this study. The snowball approach made the researcher dependent on contacts given by interviewees. This has created a sampling bias. There is an underrepresentation relatively unexperienced employees. This has implications for the results. These will be discussed at the end of this paper, in the discussion section. The objective of this research was to analyse experiences and uncover mechanisms, however, which means that this is sampling bias is not too much of a problem (Bryman, 2012).
Thematic Analysis
The method used to analyse the data is thematic analysis. The decision to use this method was based on the theoretic and practical flexibility it provides. The main focus of this research was to better understand the mechanisms influencing feelings associated with insecure forms of labour; e.g. precariousness. Given the complex nature of the topic and the variety of variables that might influence the employees’ experiences it would not have been wise to limit the research. Thematic analysis provided the necessary flexibility (Bryman, 2012).
Because the technique is not firmly rooted in any one theoretical or epistemological position, it allowed me to be more open in the type of interpretations made; e.g. constructionist versus essentialist. The research questions could thus be answered directly, or through interpreting the participants’ use of analogies, metaphors and words used to construct meaning (Braun & Clarke, 2006). In other words, it allowed me to focus on the research questions through
‘direct’ questioning while allowing for serendipity and analysis of latent themes. Furthermore, the reflexive nature of thematic analysis has allowed me to interpreted and adjust the findings while collecting the data (Bryman, 2012). In addition to this, thematic analysis allowed me to answer both inductive and deductive questions. Braun and Clarke (2006) call this inductive versus theoretical thematic analysis. The former of these is an analysis driven by the data, the latter is an analysis focussed on answering pre-existing research questions.
During the analysis of the data, the uncovered themes have adjusted the course of the research. At first, the focus was mainly on the experiences and meanings given by the interviewees with less regard for how these where constructed, i.e. the research leaned more towards an essentialist epistemology. The analysis of the data has shown that these meanings and experiences are based on how the interviewees construct their social world. Due to this, the research has included the construction of social reality through which the interviewees’ experiences and meanings are created and interpreted, i.e. the research has included elements
of a constructionist epistemology (Braun & Clarke, 2006). In other words, the research attempted to identify the mechanisms that produce social events, i.e. the interviewees
experiences, with a recognition that these are at least in part socially constructed, meaning the epistemological position can best be described as critical realism (Atkinson & Hammersley, 2007).
The creation of themes was mainly based on two conditions, frequency and relevance. The relevance towards answering the research questions at hand, and their prevalence in the data have been the deciding factor in their creation.
The interview transcripts have been analysed using the software Atlas.ti (www.atlas.ti.com), a program specifically created for the analysis of qualitative data. The interviews were held and have been described in Dutch. Excerpts used in this study have been translated. In order not to interpret the collected too much, the translation has been carried out as literal as possible without damaging the readability of the text.
The Researcher’s Position
Due to the qualitative nature of the research and the epistemological position taken, it is important to be reflexive on the researchers position in the process of data collection and interpretation. In this paragraph I will outline how the researcher’s position might have influenced the process.
I have personally carried out the interviews through use of a snowball approach. I was able to gain contacts within a company through personal contacts because I am employed in a field marketing company. The work I do is the same as the work done by the interviewees. Those that were interviewed knew that I do the same work as them. I made a conscious effort to make the interviewees aware of this fact. It was my intention that the shared experiences might help in the establishment of rapport, which in turn could help elicit more profound answers to personal questions. This led to a situation where multiple of the interviews have been conducted at the participants residence, after rapport had been established. The second reason I deliberately made the interviewees aware of my own experience in the field, is that I did not want to bias the results. I used personal contacts to gain access to the first company, meaning that these interviewees knew I worked in sales myself. If subsequent interviewees were not aware of this fact, it could have created a situation where I had more rapport with
some interviewees than with others. This is likely to be the case to a certain extent regardless; however I decided that I did not want to add any extra potential bias.
Interview Process
After contact had been established, the research aim was made clear to potential interviewees. This included a statement of confidentiality, i.e. that the collected data would remain
anonymous. This applied for both the interviewees and the companies they worked for. Some interviewees were contractually forbidden from sharing information regarding payment schemes. The collected data could identify interviewees if the companies were named.
The interviews took place at a location of the interviewee’s choosing. This was done to ensure the interviewees felt safe during the interview, making them more likely to share their
experiences. The interview locations varied were mostly carried out at the interviewees’ residence or in an office at their workplace. One interview was held in a public coffee shop.
Each interview began with the establishment of rapport. As mentioned above, I informed each interviewee of my own experiences. After the establishment of rapport, it was made clear that the interview would revolve around their experiences. This included informing the
interviewees that my personal experiences in the field should not deter them from divulging any information they thought relevant, nor that they should assume I understood the situation. In other words, the role of the naïve interviewer was implemented.
The interviews began with questions around personal information such as age and gender. From this followed questions about the work itself and how they experienced the company’s culture. After this the interviews focused more on the job-demands, job-resources,
experiences of insecurity, precariousness and positive feelings towards the labour. This structure was deliberately followed. Starting the interviews with less personal experiences might allow the interviewees some time to adjust to the situation, making them more likely to feel safe when the personal questions are asked; increasing the likelihood that they answer in earnest.
Data Description
The data used to answer the research question has been collected in 4 sales companies. The main dataset consists of 11 semi-structured interviews, 9 of which have been carried out with employees from 2 of the 4 companies. These two will be used for the bulk of the analysis. 1 additional interview has been conducted with an employee that has worked in both main companies. His experience is used as a point of reference to highlight the differences between them. Names given to interviewees are fictional.
The Companies
The 4 companies from which the data has been collected are all national and international sales companies. The branches were located in Haarlem and Amsterdam. These companies engage in a specific type of sales known as ‘direct sales’ or ‘cold sales’.
The companies’ customers are other organizations that hire their services. These customers can be any organization looking to market their product. Most commonly they are local, regional or national newspapers, national or international NGO’s, media conglomerates, energy companies and providers of novel or niche services.
The employees of these companies are predominantly young, unmarried people without any children. A substantial proportion are students. Each person interviewed in this research lives on their own or with their partner and is financially dependent on their employment,
excluding interviewee 12. His experience is therefore not directly related to the research question.
Between the companies there is a comparable hierarchy of employees’ positions. New
employees are called trainees, and are subject to a trial period during which they have to proof themselves. After this period, they become ‘promotors’. This is the general name for
employees primarily concerned with selling the products and little to no further
responsibilities. The next step in the hierarchy are the ‘captains’. In general these captains are responsible for training, guiding and mentoring trainees during their trial period. The manner in which this is done varies substantially between companies. Above the captains are the sales coaches or project managers, depending on the company. These two functions are in a few ways comparable; however they differentiate substantially in their responsibilities, their own income security and their training. Project managers have little protection or security in comparison to sales coaches, for this reason the latter are not included in the sample.
Dataset
The four companies that have been used to collect the data will be called Company A,
Company B, Company C and Company D. Here I will give a brief oversight of the individuals interviewed in each company and their demographical characteristics.
Table 1. Description Dataset
Company A: High Resources, High Demands Participant
Number
Sex Age Position in Company
Average Workweek
Experience Name
1 Female 19 Promotor 2 day 1 year Rosa 2 Female 19 Captain 2 days 11 months Elisa 3 Female 19 Captain in
Training
2 days 7 months Sarah
4 Male 22 Promotor 4/5 days 3+ years Richard 5 Male 22 Senior Captain 4/5 days 1 year 2
months
Rodney
12* Male 20 Promotor 4 days 2.5 months Oscar Company B: Low Resources, Low Demands
7 Male 21 Promotor/Captain 4 days 2.5 years Dave 9 Male 27 Promotor &
Project Manager
4 days 1 year 3 months
Peter
10 Male 29 Promotor & Project Manager
4 days 8 years Sebastian
11 Male 22 Promotor & Project Manager
4 days 2.5 years Phillip
Company C: Middle Resources, Middle Demands
6* Female 20 Captain 2 days 2 years* Beth Company D: Low Resources, Middle Demands
8 Male 19 Promotor/captain 4 days 10 months Steven *12 this participant has been interviewed on his experiences relating to resources and job-demands in both Company A and Company B.
*6 It should be noted that this participant has worked at Company D before her employment at Company C. Her experiences will be used in comparisons later one.
Precarious Employees and Shared Demands
As described in the introduction, the employees of these companies are subject to multiple job-demands and insecurity increasing measures that might induce precarious feelings or stress. Al though these job-demands and measures differ between each company in their specifics and application, they overlap in multiple ways. Here I will describe what indicators for insecurity, precariousness and job-demands are shared. How they differ between the individual companies can be found in table 2.
The first shared indicator relating to income insecurity and potential feelings of
precariousness is the usage of bonuses. The specifics of the incentive schemes differ between each company, however they are comparable in their core approach. For each sale an
employee makes, they receive a regular bonus depending on the product being sold. On top of these bonuses, they are rewarded for reaching a certain target. These bonuses are called ‘individual bonuses’. In order to encourage cooperation, employees can earn a ‘team bonus’ when their team reaches certain amounts of total sales. Finally, captains can make so called ‘captain bonuses’. This final type of bonus is awarded to captains when their trainee or team members make a certain amount of sales.
Each interviewee is dependent on these bonuses. They receive a ‘starting compensation’; however this usually consists of minimum wage which they only receive over a small portion of their working hours. This leads to the next shared factor that might induce precariousness, work-for-work. In all four companies, the employees are only compensated for a total of 5 hours per workday. These 5 hours are those that they actually spend selling the products. This is, however, far from all the time they are required to work. Their working days take up between 8 to 15 hours. This is due to the fact that they have to travel from the office to whatever location it is they are working that day, have to prepare they equipment (e.g. newspaper stands), are expected to mentor trainees and have to attend uncompensated meetings and training sessions.
The interviewed employees all enjoy relatively little protection from being fired. They’re all employed on the basis of zero-hour contracts. In a few cases these zero-hour contract are supplemented with temporary maximum hour contracts pertaining only to office
stemming from these labour arrangements, as described in the delineation of the research problem, is compounded by the widespread use of targets. All four companies employ targets which if not met can lead to termination of the worker’s employment. How these targets are implemented and how important they are for the continued employment of workers differs greatly between each company.
Shared Resources
Between the investigated companies there is a large discrepancy in the quantity and quality of training possibilities they offer to, and require of, their employees. What all companies share however – according to the interviewed employees –, is a high level of social support, group-identity and trusting relationships among both employees and management. The resource ‘mentoring’ differs substantially between companies. The only company with a relatively low level trusting relationship between employees and management is Company C. These
indicators will be analysed in depth in the thematic analysis. Organizational Culture
The norms, values and beliefs of the companies are often written down as slogans hanging on the walls, written on company clothing, shown in promotional videos etc. These norms, values and beliefs centre on personal responsibility, being in control, adventure, risk taking, a ‘winners mentality’ and more. These norms, values and beliefs can be found in all four
companies to differing degrees. Due to the complex nature of this subject, they are analysed in the thematic analysis below and not further delineated here.
Description Individual Companies
Despite all the overlaps between the companies in the services they provide, insecurity inducing tactics they employ and social support they offer, they vary substantially in other respects. Here an overview of the training possibilities within each company, and the specific job-demands they place on employees is given. These do not include the indicators that are shared among the interviewees of all companies.
Table 2. Description Individual Companies
Employee training and specific demands for each company Company A
Position Training
Trainee 10 day trial period. Each day is mentored by a captain and evaluated using a trainee card. 3 training sessions are given, 2 sales oriented and one ‘mind-set training’.
Promotor Promotors attend semi mandatory training sessions every few months, i.e. ‘mind-set training’ and ‘masterclasses’. These are given by a specialized training branch within the company and cover any topic regarding sales. Captain Captains attend a weekend long seminar. Here they learn sales techniques,
motivating trainees, feedback skills and how to be a good mentor to trainees. Demands Employees in Company A have their performance objectively measured and
underperformance can result in termination of employment every six weeks. Hard targets.*
Company B
Position Training
Trainee 4 day trial period. Trainees officially work with a captain each day. This is not always the case according to interviewees. There is no evaluation using a trainee card. 2 training sessions are officially given, 1 sales oriented and 1 motivation training. These are not always given according to interviewees. Promotor Promotors are offered training sessions every few months, i.e. sales training
and motivation training. These are not given by a specialized branch within the company but by experienced regular employees.
Captains Captains receive a short training on how to guide trainees. There is no official policy around this training, and it is given by the project managers.
Demands Employees in Company B do not have their performance monitored. There is no official target that has to be met. The target is set by the project manager for each employee, and the decisions around termination of employment are made subjectively.
No hard targets.* Company C
Position Training
Trainee 4 day trial period. Each day is mentored by a captain and evaluated using a trainee card. 2 training sessions are given, 1 sales oriented and 1 ‘mind-set training’.
Promotors Promotors attend semi mandatory training sessions every few months, i.e. ‘mind-set training’ and ‘masterclasses’. These are not given by a specialized branch within the company. Sometimes an outside trainer is hired.
Captain Captains receive a short training on how to guide trainees. There is no official policy around this training, and it is given by the sales coach.
Demands Employees in Company C do not have their performance monitored. They do have to meet objectively set targets. Due to a lack of performance monitoring, the evaluation of employees performance, and their possible termination due to it, are based on the sales coach’s subjective reasoning.
Hard targets. Company D
Position Training
Trainee 4 day trial period. Each day is mentored by a captain. There is no evaluation using a trainee card. 2 training sessions are given, 1 sales oriented and 1 motivation training.
Promotor Promotors are periodically offered training sessions on sales and motivation. No time interval can be given. These training sessions are not given by a specialized training branch.
Captains Captains receive a short training on how to guide trainees. There is no official policy around this training, and it is given by the sales coaches.
Demands Employees in Company D have their performance monitored. They are expected to meet objectively held targets. Officially, underperformance can lead to termination of employment every 5 workdays. In practice, this rule is not applied objectively and the sales coaches judgement plays a considerable role.
Hard targets.
*Hard targets, i.e. imposed targets are held objectively through the company.
* No hard targets, i.e. imposed targets are based on the manager’s subjective assessment.
Contrast Company A & Company B
The bulk of the data has been taken from Company A and Company B. For this reason, an employee of Company A formerly employed by Company B has been interviewed. This interview is used to outline the differences in the job-demands and resources and
organizational culture between these two companies. No such comparison can be made for the other companies. These differences are summarized here.
The difference between the cultures in the two companies is that Company A is more goal-oriented than Company B. Performance is valued more. Company A has more job-resources in that the level of mentoring of new employees is higher, the training is of a higher quality and more frequent. The level of social support is the high in both companies. Company A also has more job-demands, in that employees performance is monitored and there is more target pressure.
Results
The data seems to indicate that the interviewees do not experience their position as precarious. In general, they experience some anxiety over income insecurity, and job-fulfilment is
sometimes low. However, the other precariousness indicators are not represented in the data. The interviewees all have a sense of a work-based identity and feel they are able to form trusting relationships with their co-workers. Furthermore, the experienced anxiety over income insecurity seems to be relatively low, as the interviewees generally seem to feel in control over their own employment and salary. The low levels of anxiety they do experience seem to be accepted in return for other positive indicators. Job-fulfilment is increased by the strong work-based identity and group feelings. How these results came out of the data, and what the influence of the indicators of the JD-R and organizational culture are on it, can be found below.
Thematic Analysis
Out of the data, multiple themes have been identified and conceptualized. These themes are described here. Each theme is related to how the employees experience and make sense of their situation, factors that might influence feelings of precariousness and how resources or demands might influence those experiences. At the end of every theme, a mechanism impacting the experiences of insecurity and precariousness is described.
Four overarching themes have been created. These are: “Home Base” with the subtheme “Just Friends”; “Work Hard – Play Hard” with the subtheme “Self-Confidence” and; “Adventure over Security”. The first two main themes and their subthemes describe the main mechanisms impacting experiences of precariousness and income insecurity. The last theme, “Adventure over Security”, describes a mechanism impacting the indicators for positive feelings towards the labour arrangement, how employees view other forms of secure labour and how the organizational culture possibly selects for certain traits.
Each theme will be first be described, then be supported with data and analysed for possible mechanisms. The internalization of dominant norms, values and beliefs takes a large role in the analysis below. These norms, values and beliefs are relatively homogenous among the companies, although they do differ in their intensity. These norms, values and beliefs centre on personal responsibility for your performance, being in control over what happens, showing motivation and ambition and valuing freedom. How these interact with the other indicators will become clear in the description of the themes.
