Commitment of employees working on the basis of a temporary contract

Bachelor’s thesis

Eric Blok

Future Planet Studies, University of Amsterdam

Supervisor: Caroline Mullers

25-06-2019

Statement of Originality

This document is written by Eric Blok who declares to take full responsibility for the

contents of this document.

I declare that the text and the work presented in this document are original and that

no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used

in creating it.

The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of

completion of the work, not for the contents.

Inhoudsopgave

6.2. Answer to the research question...21

6.3. Limitations...22

6.4. Implications...23

7. Conclusion... 23

8. References... 24

9. Appendices... 26

9.1. Appendix 1: Interview design...26

9.2. Appendix 2: Example of open coding...28

9.3. Appendix 3: Example of axial code...29

1.

Abstract

Employing people on the basis of a temporary contract is a growing trend, also in the Netherlands (CBS, 2018). However, this trend goes hand in hand with some negative consequences. Those employees are often less satisfied (CBS, 2018) and experience less organizational commitment in comparison to employees working on the basis of a permanent contract (De Gilder, 2003). However, other studies showed that commitment was not

affected by the type of contract (Pearce, 1993), and McDonald & Makin (2000) showed that commitment of employees working on the basis of a temporary contract is higher in

comparison to employees working on the basis of a permanent contract. Due to these contradicting results, the purpose of this study is to give an overview of the different factors that influence the organizational commitment for employees working on the basis of a temporary contract. In order to do so, the following research question has been answered: ‘Which factors influence the affective, continuance, and normative organizational

commitment of employees working with a temporary contract at a relatively young company?’.

A qualitative research was conducted in which ten interviews with people working on the basis of a temporary contract have been conducted and analyzed. The results showed that continuance and normative commitment of the participants was low, probably due to the fact that most of them looked at this job as just a side job. However, affective commitment of the respondents was high because they had a positive appreciation of the management style and work atmosphere. Which shows that factors that apply to every employee affected the organizational commitment of the participants in this study the most.

In future research, the sample should be altered in such a way that there is an equal distribution of people that look at their jobs as just a side job and people that do not.

2.

Introduction

Employing people with a temporary contract is a growing trend, also in the Netherlands. According to the CBS (2018), the amount of flex workers has grown intensely: the amount of flex workers accounted for 21,9% of the labor force in 2003, in 2017 they accounted for 34,8%. However, freelancers and employers with a regular contract but with flexible hours were also counted as flex workers. But especially the group of employees with a temporary contract has grown the most in the past couple of years (CBS, 2018). This growing trend of employees with a temporary contract goes hand in hand with some negative consequences. Employees with a temporary contract are often less satisfied with their job (CBS, 2017), receive less training than employees with a permanent contract (ROA, 2018), and are said to express less organizational commitment than employees with a permanent contract (De Gilder, 2003). Especially organizational commitment is very interesting due to conflicting results of previous research, as will be elaborated in the theoretical framework. Besides that, organizational commitment of employees is very important for a company as it affects the performance of the employees. Meyer et al. (1989) showed that job performance is positively affected by affective commitment, and negatively affected by continuance commitment. Allen & Smith (1987) also concluded that job performance is negatively affected by continuance commitment. A well performing company obviously needs well performing employees, so increasing the performance of the employees is very beneficial for a company. Employee turnover is also affected by commitment; Angle & Perry (1981) showed that organizational commitment is negatively related to employee turnover. Which can be beneficial for the company as the costs of turnover are high. In conclusion, in order to lower employee turnover and to increase job performance of employees, companies should pay attention to the commitment of their employees – specifically the affective commitment as this has a positive relation with job performance. With this research, an overview of factors that influence the commitment of employees with a temporary contract has been provided. This has been done by answering the following research question: ‘Which factors influence the affective, continuance, and normative organizational commitment of employees working with a temporary contract at a relatively young company?’. In order to do so, a qualitative

research was conducted at a Dutch grocery delivering company which is founded in 2015. Most of their employees are employed on the basis of a temporary contract. First of all, a theoretical framework is provided in which the previous research on this topic is discussed. Secondly, the method this research uses in order to answer the research question is presented, after which the results have been analyzed and discussed. Lastly, a discussion and conclusion are provided.

3.

Theoretical Framework

According to Meyer & Allen (1991), there are three types of organizational commitment: affective (a desire), continuance (a need), and normative (an obligation). Affective commitment means staying with an organization because people want to, continuance means staying because they need to, and normative means staying because they feel they need to (Meyer & Allen, 1991). Research has been done on the effect of commitment on job performance. Meyer et al. (1989) showed that job performance is positively affected by affective commitment and negatively affected by continuance commitment. This implies that for an organization it is important to have committed employees. However, this is only the case when the employees show affective commitment rather than continuance commitment. Allen & Smith (1987) also show that continuance commitment negatively affects job

performance. In that research however, the level of performance was self-reported. Besides the effect that commitment has on job performance, it also affects employee turnover. Angle & Perry (1981) showed that employee turnover is negatively affected by organizational commitment, indicating that fewer employees leave the company when their organizational commitment is high.

Some research has been done on organizational commitment of employees with a temporary contract in comparison to employees with a permanent contract. However, the results of these studies deviated. In a research conducted by De Gilder (2003), the results concluded that employees with a temporary contract showed less affective and continuance commitment than employees with a permanent contract due to the relationship the

employees have with the company. They claim that this may be the case due to the fact that the contingent workers may take a more distant, or even calculative stance. When such a stance is taken by the employees, they might feel that the employer’s trustworthiness and justice is not as profitable for them as it is for employees with a permanent contract (De Gilder, 2003). This results in a different type of relationship than employees with a permanent contract have with their employer. Pearce (1993) on the other hand, stated that affective organizational commitment is the same for employees with a temporary and employees with a permanent contract. Reichers (1985) even claims that an employee can have one level of commitment for the organization, and another level of commitment for multiple constituencies within the company. Van Dyne & Ang (1998) stated that, in time of labor shortages,

contingent workers experience less affective commitment than permanent workers. They also concluded that when their commitment is high and they evaluate their psychological contract with the organization as positive, they engage in high levels of organizational citizenship (Van Dyne & Ang, 1998). Rousseau (1989) defines the psychological contract as a reciprocal exchange agreement between two parties, which can be seen as an obligation to provide future benefits. One of the things organizations can do to ensure their employees with future benefits is by providing them with training. Chambel & Sobral (2011) found that when employees are provided with training, it increases their affective commitment. And as already stated, employees with a temporary contract receive less training than employees with a permanent contract (ROA, 2018).

Organizations can enhance their employees’ commitment by investing in the

psychological contract with their employee. However, violations of the psychological contract can have negative consequences on their employee’s organizational commitment. In a research conducted by McDonald & Makin (2000), the results suggested that affective and normative commitment, and even job satisfaction, is higher for employees with a temporary contract. Continuance commitment, however, was higher for employees with a permanent contract. They claimed that this may be the case for two reasons. Firstly, employees with a temporary contract have spent less time in the organization than employees with a

permanent contract, which means that the chance of violations of the psychological contract is smaller for employees with a temporary contract. They claim that violations of the

psychological contract can lead to decreased affective and normative organizational commitment (McDonald & Makin, 2000). This statement is supported by Meyer & Allen

(1997), who claim that the management style, which affects the psychological contract, influences the commitment of employees. Secondly, it could be the case that all the

employees with a temporary contract in that research had a high, and realistic, expectation of eventually acquiring a permanent contract. It is quite possible that this is one of the reasons for the high affective organizational commitment among employees with a temporary contract (McDonald & Makin, 2000).

As mentioned above, there are a lot of factors that influence the affective,

continuance, and normative organizational commitment of an employee with a temporary contract: the psychological contract, receiving training, and the expectation of a permanent contract. However, many of the results of the different studies are contradicting and are about different types of organizational commitment. Besides that, the organizations that were studied were all established companies and none of the studies were done with relatively young companies. But in the Netherlands a record number of new companies were founded in 2018. According to the CBS (2019), 191.000 new companies were founded in 2018. The balance between companies found and companies abolished was the highest since 2007 (CBS, 2019). Because of the relatively easy way to grow within a young company, it might be the case that this influences the organizational commitment of the employees. This might be due to the fact that the opportunity to grow within the company influences the psychological contract the employees have with the company. And as already stated, the psychological contract influences the organizational commitment of employees (McDonald & Makin, 2000). Hence, within this qualitative research, an overview of different factors that influence the organizational commitment of employees with a temporary contract working at a relatively young company has been provided. Not only their affective organizational commitment, but also their continuance and normative organizational commitment.

All of what is mentioned above results in the following research question: ‘Which factors influence the affective, continuance, and normative organizational commitment of employees working with a temporary contract at a relatively young company?’. In order to answer the research question, the following sub-questions will be answered: 1) ‘Which factors influence the affective organizational commitment of employees working with a temporary contract at a relatively young company?’ 2) ‘Which factors influence the

continuance organizational commitment of employees working with a temporary contract at a relatively young company?’ and 3) ‘Which factors influence the normative organizational commitment of employees working with a temporary contract at a relatively young company?’

Figure 1: Concept map: a visual representation of the theoretical framework

Above is a visual representation of the theoretical framework. As the map describes, working on the basis of a temporary contract affects the three different types of commitment (Meyer & Allen, 1991) in different ways. One of the ways how having a temporary contract affects the commitment is by training. When provided with training, employees show more affective commitment (Chambel & Sobral, 2011). However, people working on the basis of a temporary contract receive less training in comparison to people working on the basis of a permanent contract (ROA, 2018). The second factor that influences the commitment of employees is labor shortage. According to Van Dyne & Ang (1998), working on the basis of a temporary contract negatively affects the affective commitment of employees. However, this relationship is moderated by labor shortages. The third factor that influences the relationship between having a temporary contract and organizational commitment is the relationship with the company. De Gilder (2003) states that people working on the basis of a temporary contract show less affective and continuance commitment in comparison to employees working on the basis of a permanent contract due to different types of relationships with the company as a result of a distant or even calculative stance taken by employees working on the basis of a temporary contract. The fourth and last factor that affects the relationship between having a temporary contract and organizational commitment is the psychological contract. The psychological contract is quite similar to a relationship, but unlike De Gilder (2003), McDonald & Makin (2000) claim that having a temporary contract positively affects the affective and normative commitment of the employees due to the psychological contract. However, continuance commitment is lower for people working with a temporary contract in comparison to people working with a permanent contract. All these factors affect the three different types of organizational commitment that employees can have. These types of commitment affect the performance of the employees. According to Meyer et al. (1989), job performance is positively affected by affective commitment and negatively affected by continuance commitment.

4.

Method section

This research has been conducted at a Dutch company which delivers groceries, and was founded in 2015. In 2018 it earned the title of fastest-growing technology startup in the Netherlands (Emerce, 2018). They also won the Next Unicorn Award in 2017, an award given to companies that have the potential of reaching a market value of one billion euros (Emerce, 2017). They are still expanding and provide their employees with great

opportunities to grow within the company.

As already mentioned, the results of many other studies done on this topic are contradicting. Because of that, this research has tried to give an overview of the different factors that influence the organizational commitment of employees working with a temporary contract instead of examining the relationship between a single factor and organizational commitment. This research did not just examine how much organizational commitment those employees have but explored how their feeling of commitment is influenced and why this is the case. In order to do so, a qualitative research has been conducted. The data has been gathered using ten semi-structured interviews with employees with temporary contracts in which they have been asked about their organizational commitment, and how it is influenced. Out of those ten employees, two supervisors have been interviewed because they have already grown within the company, which might influence their organizational commitment. One of them has been a supervisor for a while and the other one has recently been

promoted. The other eight participants have all been working at the company for less than half a year. All the participants have been informed about the purpose of the interview, and their privacy has been warranted (Boeije, 2010). The interviews have been recorded only if the participants agreed, and their answers have been analyzed anonymously. All the participants have been interviewed with the same semi-structured interview used by the same interviewer. This increased the reliability of this study because reliability is mostly concerned with the repeatability of a study (Kvale, 1996), and it can be enhanced by

consistently carrying out the fieldwork and by making sure that all participants have an equal chance of sharing their experiences and feelings (Lewis & Ritchie, 2003). When this is the case, the repeatability of the study increases. As this research has been done individually, analyst triangulation is not possible. However, in agreement with the participants, member validation has been used (Boeije, 2010). Member validation means that the participants have been presented with the findings and interpretations, after which they gave feedback and an indication of how much they agree with the interpretations (Boeije, 2010). This has increased the validity of this research. The fact that the researcher is a colleague of the participants, and a relationship of trust exists, has lowered the chances of reactivity. And in combination with the anonymity of the participants, the social desirability bias has been tackled. However, the fact that the researcher is a colleague of the participants also had a downside. The interpretations of the researcher could have been influenced by his own experiences with the company, resulting in the confirmation bias. However, this bias has been minimized by using member validation.

The gathered data has been analyzed and structured through the abductive research method, which is a combination of inductive and deductive reasoning. The theories and assumptions that have been pointed out in the theoretical framework have been tested using the deductive method. However, it had been expected that new theories and assumptions would arise from the interpretations of the gathered data. Hence, the inductive research method has also been used because this will help to structure the data and will help with findings links between the data (Thomas, 2006). In order to do so, there has been made use of the coding-method. The coding-method started off with the open coding, then axial coding, and lastly selective coding. This allowed the researcher to systematically analyze the data, which increased the reliability of this research (Lewis & Ritchie, 2003). Whilst analyzing the data, the contexts of the interviews have been taken into account, and a detailed description of these contexts are provided. This allows others to assess the transferability of the findings, which increased the generalizability of the research (Carcary, 2009).

5.

Results

All of the participants of this research were working on the basis of a temporary contract. Two of them are supervisors, the other eight are the deliverers of the groceries. Three of them were working full time, while the others were students with this job as a side job. Except for one of the participants, all of them were working at the company for less than half a year. The age of the participants ranged from 18 to 32.

After analyzing the data, it was clear that there were multiple themes which were mentioned multiple times. These themes have all been divided between six overarching themes, which are: commitment, future intentions, employment, training, organizational structure, and organizational culture. These themes are presented in the conceptual

framework below. In this section of the report, the results found will be discussed for each of these themes.

5.1.

Commitment

The theme ‘Commitment’ consists of the following sub-themes: affective commitment, continuance commitment, normative commitment, origin of commitment, and expression of commitment. As this entire research is about the commitment of the employees, not all of what has been said by the participants about commitment will be analyzed in this section. The other themes all have impact on the commitment of the employees and this impact will be discussed in the part about that specific theme. In this section, general information about the commitment of the participants will be presented.

In the beginning of the interview, participants were asked to rate their own commitment to the company on a scale from 1 – 10. The average of these scores was 7.5 out of 10. After that, the participants were asked about their affective, continuance, and normative commitment. The type of commitment that was present the most was affective, as most of them really liked their job and claimed that it would be hard for them to get as attached to another company as they are now. One of the participants, for example, said the following when asked about the fact whether he/she could get attached to another company as easily as to this company:

‘No I don’t think so. […] I feel so welcome here, I’ve never experienced that anywhere else.’.

Another participant, when asked about his/her appreciation of his/her job, said the following:

‘I actually like it more than I’d expected. Normally I always thought “ah need to go to work again..”, but for now I still really like it.’.

Continuance commitment, however, was not very present with the participants. Most of the participants indicated that it would not be hard for them to leave the company, as most of them believed that there were plenty of alternatives. The only participant with continuance commitment stated that it would be hard to find alternatives because he/she felt that his/her age is a problem when looking for a job. When asked about the level of difficulty of leaving the company he/she said:

‘It’s mostly my age that is against working somewhere else.’.

The normative commitment of the participants was also low, as they indicated that they

would not feel guilty when they would leave the company. One participant explained that he/she had the feeling that when he/she left, he/she could easily be replaced. The participants who showed normative commitment indicated that this feeling of guilt when leaving the organization was directed towards their colleagues and to the branch they were working, not towards the company itself. When asked whether the participant would feel guilty when leaving the organization, he/she answered:

‘I would, because the work atmosphere is way too good. […]. Especially towards my colleagues, because you leave them with the problems.’.

This will be elaborated when discussing the theme ‘Organizational Structure’.

As already mentioned above, the average score of the commitment of the participants was quite high. The factors that influence that commitment will be discussed in the following sections. However, participants also came up with factors that influenced their commitment which were not part of this research. One participant reported that he/she did not feel very committed because he/she had not been working a lot in the past few weeks. Other

participants, who viewed themselves as pretty committed, stated that their commitment came from within. One of them said the following:

‘I guess it’s my character. I’m like when I work somewhere I work there which means that you’re committed. Like you would if you work somewhere later on. It’s a trait of mine.’.

When asked how the participants expressed their commitment, most of them gave quite a similar answer: taking more shifts, taking over shifts from colleagues, cleaning the hub and the office, helping colleagues, willing to help the company, and being extra friendly to customers. Some other answers were a feeling of responsibility towards the hub, feeling of responsibility towards the employees this participant had trained, motivating colleagues, and feeling guilty when not being able to help the company.

5.2.

Future Intentions

One of the factors that influenced the commitment of the participants were their intentions for their future. How these intentions for the future impacted the commitment of the participants will be discussed in this section about the theme: ‘Future Intentions’. This theme consists of the following sub-themes: opportunities for growth within the company, side job, and future at company. As the company is relatively young, there are a lot of opportunities for growth within the company. The participants all claimed that it was able for them to become a trainer of new employees, supervisor of the hub, and even manager of the hub. Some claimed that the company was really advertising this at the job interviews; one of them said the following:

‘It gets mentioned a lot in your job interview “yeah very soon you can grow within the company as this or as that”.’.

However, some also said that it is possible for everyone to grow within the company in theory, but that it is different in practice because there are only limited open spots for supervisors or managers. Another participant mentioned the following:

‘[…] but I think it’s very limited because it just depends how well you fit in the group and the way the branch grows.’.

Two of the participants who rated their own commitment the highest of all the participants had been promoted to supervisors. One of them had not been working at the company for two months when he/she got the promotion. They believed that the promotion is not the reason for their high commitment, as they both reported that they believed that their

commitment was the reason for their promotion. However, one participant did claim that this promotion affected his/her commitment positively:

‘I got a huge motivation boost when I got promoted. That makes you want to show more effort by making this branch even better…’.

They also both claimed to have gotten more responsibility after the promotion, which, according to them, also resulted in more commitment.

Not all of the participants had the aspiration to grow within the company. As a result, they claimed that the presence of the opportunities to grow within the company had no effect on their commitment. Most of the people who did not aspire to grow within the company reported that they did not see themselves working for this company for a very long time. Which, they claimed, had a negative impact on their commitment. The participants who did see themselves working for this company in the future claimed that that idea made them more committed. Those were also the people that aspired to grow within to company, which for some also affected their commitment in a positive way. Others indicated that the

aspiration to grow within the company did not affect their commitment.

The fact that most participants did not see themselves working for this company for a very long time was often because they looked at this job as just a side job, as they are still studying. When a participant was asked why he/she said he/she planned to leave the company in a year, he/she answered:

‘Because then I’m done studying, and then I want to look for a job that is in line with my study’.

Some of the participants who looked at this job as just a side job reported that this led to less commitment. This view also affects the normative commitment; when asked if the participant would feel guilty when leaving the company, he/she answered:

‘No, I really only see it as a side job’.

Some participants, however, claimed that looking at their job as just a side job did not affect their commitment in any way.

5.3.

Employment

This research is about the commitment of employees working on the basis of a temporary contract. This obviously led to frequent mentioning of the type of employment and the fact that the participants were employed on the basis of a temporary contract. These two sub-themes are part of the theme ‘Employment’ and will be discussed in this section. Two of the participants are supervisors, two of them are trainers of new employees, and the rest is working as runners (delivery of groceries). All of them are employed on the basis of a temporary contract. Except for one participant, they all worked at the company for less than six months. The participant who has been employed for more than six months reported that he/she feels like his/her commitment is partly due to his/her long employment. With the exception of three participants, all of them were working part-time. Two of those three employees working full-time indicated that they would prefer to be employed on the basis of a permanent contract. However, they did not feel like working with a temporary contract affected their commitment. The other participants stated that they had no problem with working on the basis of a temporary contract because it is a side job and they are used to a temporary contract. One of the participants even indicated that he/she preferred to work on the basis of a temporary contract as it allowed him/her to choose how much and when he/she works. Another participant was also very positive about working on the basis of a temporary contract. He/she stated:

‘That’s why I think a temporary contract is very positive, but that’s solely due to the fact that I’m young’,

implying that a temporary contract is only preferred at this age. Every participant stated that the fact that they are working on the basis of a temporary contract had no effect on their commitment. When asked how having a permanent contract would affect his/her

commitment, the participant answered:

‘It doesn’t. If I’m employed anywhere then I’m doing my job, it does not matter what kind of contract I’m working with. My commitment would not change’.

Other participants however could imagine that their commitment would increase when working on the basis of a permanent contract. All of the participants claimed that an extension of the temporary contract was self-evident when their work was done properly.

5.4.

Training

As already mentioned in the theoretical framework, Chambel & Sobral (2011) claim that providing employees with training affects their commitment positively. That is why the

participants were asked about receiving training, which resulted in the frequent mentioning of the theme training. When asked whether they received training, participants reported that they received a training at the beginning of their employment aimed at the tasks needed to be performed at this particular company. Some of them also mentioned receiving a safety workshop. Besides the trainings aimed at the tasks they need to perform when working at the company, they did not receive any training which personally benefits them. One of the participants reported that not receiving training is unfortunate, but does not matter for him/her as this is just a temporary job. When asked about his/her thoughts on the matter, he/she answered:

‘On the one hand it’s a bummer, but on the other hand I’m, as I already mentioned, not planning to stay with the company for a very long time. So on the other hand I’m fine with it’.

When asked how not receiving training changed his/her view on the company he/she answered:

‘Well I have to say, it exudes ‘okay you know, you are just a runner’.

Implying that the company is not very concerned with their employees when it comes to this aspect. It did not affect his/her commitment, but he/she did indicate that he/she would like

training if he/she would have planned to work at the company for a longer period of time. This point of view is confirmed by another participant, but he/she claimed that receiving training is not common with a side job. When asked about his/her opinion on the fact that he/she did not receive any training, the participant answered:

‘Hard to say, it’s just a side job obviously, and I’ve never had a side job where they said “we are going to provide you with training that personally benefits you”. I think it’s more suited with a full-time job, a “real” job where the company is willing to invest in you because it fits

their capital’.

This statement is supported by one participants who worked full-time, he/she indeed indicated that he/she is not pleased about the fact that he/she did not receive any training. Multiple participants reported to be thankful towards the company if they would receive training, but that they do not care about it at this point. Some participants reported that they understood that they did not receive training because the company is relatively young. One of them said:

‘I think it’s not so much that they don’t want to invest in me, I think the company is still so young at the moment that they actually want to put every profit back into the growth of their company, and at this point that has more to do with expanding their branches throughout the

Netherlands, instead of micromanagement like ‘we are going to improve our employees individually’.

Party for these reasons, almost all the participants indicate that not receiving training did not influence their commitment to the company. However, one of the supervisors did receive training and claimed that that altered his/her view on the company. When asked about his/her ideas on the fact that he/she received training the participant answered:

‘Given that the courses are paid for, I think it’s pretty nice from the company that those people want to satisfy me in that way’.

When asked how it changed his/her view on the company, the participant reported:

‘At first I believed that the company was not very involved with their employees, this shows me that I was wrong’.

5.5.

Organizational Structure

Another theme that came back frequently was the structure of the organization, which will be discussed in this section of the results. At the company there is one head office which makes all the decisions, and multiple separate hubs throughout the Netherlands. These hubs all have a few supervisors and one hub manager. The head office and the hub are seen as two separate units by all of the participants. One participant states:

‘Yes I think those are two different things, because you’re a bit far from the company because there is not much contract with them’.

One of the participants goes further and when asked about the relationship between him/her and the head office he/she states:

‘I’m just working for them. I don’t feel like they pay attention to every employee. I think I’m, at least for the head office, just a number. But for the runner plus and hub manager I’m a

person so to speak’.

This separation of these two units may lead to the fact that all of the participants claim that their commitment is towards the hub, and not towards the company itself. When asked about his/her feelings about the fact that the employees are not in contact with the actual

organization, one participant stated:

‘Well you’re more committed to the hub instead of the head office.’.

Despite the fact that the hub and the head office are separate units, none of the participants stated that this influenced their commitment in general. One participant however, when asked about the absence of contact with the actual organization stated:

‘I don’t really care about that. Because I have little motivation to grow within the company anyways’.

Implying that when he/she would have the aspiration to grow within the company, he/she would appreciate more contact with the actual company. This type of structure, in which the head office is separated from the hubs does have some negative influences on the

communication within the company, this will be elaborated in the section of the next theme. Within the company, there is little responsibility for the runners. The supervisors on the other hand, the participants who scored the highest when evaluating their own commitment, do of course have responsibility. They also claimed that their commitment was partly due to their responsibility. When one of the participants, who had not yet grown within the company but was pretty committed, was asked whether he/she wanted to grow within the company he/she answered:

‘Yes I do. I’m the type of person who wants to take responsibility for things. Even if it’s tough, that is just the way I am. So yes I think I want the grow within the company when there is an

opening again’.

The runner trainer indicated that being a trainer led to a sense of responsibility for the people he/she trained. When asked about his/her own perception about his/her commitment, the participants answered:

‘I think I consider myself to be an eight. Especially because I’m a trainer […]. I don’t know what the other trainers think of this, but I think it is very important that every new employee

that is trained by me is a right fit for the team, so that’s why I keep in contact about my worries and discuss my feelings with them [the hub manager and trainer manager] whether it

is a good idea to hire someone, or not hire when I have my doubts about that’.

These examples imply that when the participants felt some responsibility they felt more committed, and that when they feel committed, the participants would like some

responsibility. This is supported by the fact that when participants were asked what they would like to see changed in order for them to feel more commitment, some participants came up with meetings in which all the employees could give their opinion on different subject which increased their participation within the company. One of the participants said:

‘I would say a monthly meeting […]. So that’s what I would do, a meeting. In which the runners will be asked “What do you guys think? What is important to you?” and that the

company listens to that. That’s something I would change.’.

5.6.

Organizational Culture

The theme that came back the most was the theme ‘Organizational Culture’. This theme consist of seven sub-themes which are: work circumstances, company’s involvement in employees, balance of investment, management style, communication within company and work environment. Why this theme is so important will be explained in this section of the results. The company at which the participants were all employed is relatively young, and the hub they are working at is even younger. The hub is expanding with great speed, which led to the constant hiring of new employees. Some of the participants indicated that they did not know most of their colleagues, which affected their commitment negatively. One participant stated:

‘When I don’t work for a week and come back at the hub there are several people I’ve never met before. Then you might feel less committed than when you work every day and talk to

the colleagues. I assume that that would increase the commitment’.

Another participant, when asked what he/she would change in order to increase the commitment of employees, stated:

‘I think I would organize monthly meetings, in that case the colleagues get to know each other. Because I don’t know many of the people who work on the weekends. I think that’s bad. I would also hang pictures of all the employees on the wall, because at some time there

will be so many people working here that I have no clue who my own colleagues are. I think that’s bad too.’.

Implying that one way of increasing his/her commitment is to know who his/her colleagues are.

At this company, the runners need to claim shifts in order to work, which means that the employees decide when and how much they work. Some of the participants claim that this is ideal for them as they combine work with studying. When asked about the reason the participant decided to work for this company he/she reported:

‘Because you can schedule your own hours, which means that you don’t have fixed hours or days. Because my schedule at school is different every week.’.

However, another participant claimed that due to the consistent hiring of new employees a problem with supply and demand had occurred. When asked about the things the participant would do different in order to increase the commitment of the employees he/she said:

‘That’s hard to say. I think one of the most important things, and I’ve mentioned this before, is the supply and demand of shifts. I think that needs to be fixed. […] but that’s one of the biggest annoyances that I just notice in the workplace. Many people are complaining about

this, about the fact that they can’t work a sufficient amount of hours.’.

However, the company initiated the ability to become a marathon runner, which means that you get fixed shifts every week, in order to tackle this problem. This is a way that the

company shows they are involved with the employees as well. Other participants mentioned other ways in which the company showed this involvement. One of the participants said:

‘I had gotten a fine last month. And the hub manager tried to help in every way to appeal that fine.’.

Others mentioned something else that showed the company’s involvement in the employees:

‘I’ve never experienced that you’re able to grab all sorts of things during a break, food and drinks, it’s all there. Those kind of things, also that at Friday night there is a pizza and beer

night, and there is a table tennis table you know, all sorts of nice things. I’ve never experienced that with another job. And because they award you with these kind of things, I

feel like you want to return the favor and give something back to the company.’.

Implying that because the company invested in the employees with all these things, the participant is willing to work harder for the company and show more commitment. This balance of investment is mentioned by other participants as well. The fact that the company is willing to show involvement in and commitment to the employees makes them want to show more commitment as well.

Those employee benefits are a good example of the management style of this company. All of the participants were very positive about it. The lack of hierarchy was mentioned multiple times, one of the participants stated the following:

‘I don’t really notice any hierarchy. Of course there is a little, but as soon as you get back from your shifts the hierarchy is gone.’.

Besides the lack of hierarchy, the reachability of the supervisors was mentioned too:

‘Actually, I have to say that they are quite reachable and don’t act like they’re the boss, or anything. They are responsible, so when needed they take action, but they work mostly out

of reachability.’.

This reachability was also mentioned by another participant who claimed that that probably was the case because of the young age of the supervisors. It was also mentioned that making mistakes was not a huge deal. Moreover, it was also mentioned that the supervisors are always very helpful, the following was said:

‘They are always very helpful, you can always come to them with questions or when I’ve bumped into something. They’re always the first to help me out.’.

All of this resulted in positive appreciation of the management style by the participants, one of them also claimed that at this company he/she did not feel like he/she was just a number, something the participant did experience at his/her previous job. Many of the participants stated that this way of management was increasing their commitment. One of them stated that he/she believed that people do not work as hard for a very strict boss as they would do for a boss that works from a perspective of equality.

However, not everything about the management style was perceived as positive by the participants. One participant mentioned that he/she sometimes felt like the company did not listen to him/her, which negatively affected his/her commitment. Besides that,

communication within the company was also mentioned by a lot of the participants as a point of improvement. Especially the communication with the hub manager, according to the runners as well as the supervisors. Concerning the communication within the company, the hub manager is the link between the head office and the supervisors. Both the supervisors stated that this function of a link was not executed perfectly. Moreover, the communication between the hub manager and the supervisors was perceived as a point of improvement as well. One of the supervisors said:

‘It happens that there are some problems that I need to fix, or provide runners with reactions while the matter should actually be handled by the hub manager.’.

This view was agreed upon by one of the runners. However, they both claimed that it did not bother them in such a way that it affected their commitment. Communication between the hub manager and the runners was an issue as well. Almost all of the participants mentioned that they hardly ever see him at work, and that almost all communication was online, in which the hub manager either responded late or did not respond at all. When asked about the management style of the company, one participant answered:

‘Hard to say actually, we don’t see the managers a lot actually. He’s working from home or at the head office and we occasionally see him here. I don’t really have a, I don’t know, I’m not

in contact with him much.’.

One of the supervisors mentioned that he had noticed that this lack of communication led to frustrations for some of the runners. However, these runners described their relationship with the hub manager and the company as professional and none of the participants claimed that this lack of communication affected their commitment. That might be due to the fact that the communication with the supervisors was perceived as positive.

Communication was not a factor that affected the commitment of the participants, the relationship with the company, however, was. Some of the participants claimed that if their relationship with the company was not as good as it is, their commitment would be affected negatively. One of the participants claimed that his/her commitment could not really be affected by anything except for the relationship the participant had with the company. If this relationship would be damaged, he/she reported that that would influence his/her

commitment negatively. However, almost all of the participants claimed that at this point neither the communication or the relationship with the company affected their commitment. The only participant who had been working for the company for more than a year, however, had experienced an incident in which the relationship with the company had been damaged. The participant claimed that due to this incident, he/she was not willing to do additional tasks. The participant also claimed that bad communication was also a reason for the damaged relationship, about which he/she stated:

‘And that is the case that my commitment has become less since the first week of being a supervisor.’.

However, this participant claimed that he/she was still highly commitment due to the fact that the positives outweighed the negatives, but that he/she believed that he/she would take on more additional tasks if that incident had not happened.

When asked about their affective commitment, almost all of the participants

mentioned that the work atmosphere really affected their commitment positively. Participants mentioned that from the first day working at the company it felt like home, and that the colleagues really made the work atmosphere as good as it is. One participant stated:

‘The sociability among the colleagues, I’ve never experienced it anywhere else. You just feel very nice etcetera, I don’t really know how to explain. I just feel good about it, and the

colleagues are just very nice to one another.’.

This participant also stated that the employees were always willing to help each other out. Participants also mentioned that because of the work atmosphere, people were willing to do more. When asked whether he/she could become as attached to another company the way he/she is attached now, the participant answered:

‘That’s a hard question, I don’t think so. I think it is the ambiance with the colleagues, and the

work itself. I really enjoy working here. But also the colleagues, the work atmosphere, everything. That also causes me to be willing to do more.’.

Another participant claimed that if the coworkers are nice, it causes people to be more committed. He/she said:

‘When there is a certain work atmosphere which is nice, with nice coworkers, everybody is nice, than your commitment will obviously be higher. Which causes you to do more. […].

That influences my commitment as well.’.

One of the participants mentioned that he/she heard that at a different hub, the working atmosphere was not as nice, which caused the supervisors to be less committed than they are at this hub. These examples support the fact that the work atmosphere really affects the commitment of the participants positively. A few reasons for this positive work atmosphere were mentioned by the participants. One of them stated that it was the result of relatively young supervisors. Another participant who was employed as supervisor stated that it was due to the management style of the company. That the work atmosphere was somewhat of a priority within the company, which they translated in to beer and pizza nights, hub parties, and unlimited food for the employees while working. In conclusion, every employee indicated that they could get along with each other really well and that that affected their commitment positively. However, one participant who rated him/herself the lowest with regard to

commitment, stated the following:

‘Most of the people working here, they are nice though, but it are not people that I would become friends with. My friends are just different. I think they are nice […] but I would not go

out with them for example.’.

This may show that a lot of commitment the participants experienced was due the relationships they had with their colleagues.

6.

Discussion

In this part of the report the results found are compared to the theories presented in the theoretical framework. After this, an answer to the research question: ‘Which factors

influence the affective, continuance, and normative organizational commitment of employees working with a temporary contract at a relatively young company?’ will be provided. At the end of the discussion, the limitations of this research will be discussed and the implications and recommendations will be presented.

6.1.

Comparison to theory

In this part of the report the theories presented in the theoretical framework are compared with the results of the interviews, in order to provide an answer to the research question. In the theoretical framework some theories concerning organizational commitment for people with a temporary contract have been described, which will be tested based on the results. Theories that deviate from the theories analyzed in the theoretical framework will also be discussed in this part of the report.

6.1.1.

Commitment

Meyer & Allen (1991) concluded that there are three types of organizational commitment: affective (a desire), continuance (a need), and normative (an obligation). The participants were questioned about these different types of commitment on the basis of different

statements. The results showed that the participants scored relatively high on affective commitment, very low on continuance commitment, and low on normative commitment. The participants that reported to feel any kind of normative commitment all indicated that this type of commitment was solely towards the hub, and not to the company itself.

The difference in commitment for people with a temporary contract and people with a permanent contract have been the subject of previous research. However, the results of these studies often deviated from each other. De Gilder (2003) stated that employees with a temporary contract showed less affective and continuance commitment than employees with a permanent contract due to the type of relationship between the company and the

employee. Pearce (1993) came with different results and stated that affective commitment is the same for people with a temporary and people with a permanent contract. In this research however, all the participants were employed on the basis of a temporary contract.

Consequently, it is not possible to compare the commitment of people with a temporary contract and people with a permanent contract. However, participants stated that having a temporary or permanent contract would not make a difference for them in terms of

commitment. This is probably due to the fact that within this research, many participants looked at their job as just a side job. This statement is supported by the fact that the

participants who did work full-time would, in contrast to the rest, prefer to be employed on the basis of a permanent contract. The participants who did not care whether they worked on the basis of a temporary or permanent contract stated that this was due to the fact that it was just a side job for them, and that they had no intention to stay with the company for a very long time. However, they claimed that having a temporary contract did not affect their commitment at all. Which implies that having a temporary contract may only affect commitment when there is an desire or intention to stay with the company for a very long time.

Van Dyne & Ang (1998) stated that in time of labor shortages, contingent workers experience less affective commitment. Which implies that when there are plenty of jobs for the employees, they experience less affective commitment. The results of the interviews indicated that they believed that there were plenty of alternatives if they had to leave the company, which resulted in the fact that their continuance commitment was very low.

However, this did not result in the experience of less affective commitment while the situation is comparable: in both situations it would be easy for the employees to find another job. Dyne & Ang (1998) claim that this negatively affects the affective commitment of temporary

employees, whereas the results of the interviews showed that even when there are plenty of alternatives, affective commitment can still be high.

In contrast to what was concluded by the studies mentioned above, McDonald & Makin (2000) claim that employees working on the basis of a temporary contract experienced more affective commitment than employees working on the basis of a permanent contract. They stated that one of the reasons that that could be the case was the fact that the employees working on the basis of a temporary contract had a high, and realistic,

expectation of eventually acquiring a permanent contract (McDonald & Makin, 2000). The results of this study showed that the participants did experience a high level of affective commitment, but that had nothing to do with the expectation of eventually acquiring a

permanent contract. Again, probably due to the fact that most of the participants of this study viewed their employment as a side job. The reasons for the high affective commitment will be elaborated below.

6.1.2.

Training

The information provided above implies that working on the basis of a temporary contract did not affect the commitment of (most of) the participants. One factor that does affect the commitment of the participants is the relationship they have with their employer. This relationship can also be seen as a psychological contract. Rousseau (1989) defines the psychological contract as a reciprocal exchange agreement between two parties, which can be seen as an obligation to provide future benefits. It implies that when one party benefits the

other party in any way, the other party is obligated to benefit the other party in the future. Organizations can increase their psychological contract with their employees in multiple ways. One of the things organizations can do is provide the employees with training.

Chambel & Sobral (2011) found that when employees are provided with training, it increases their affective commitment. However, employees working on the basis of a temporary

contract receive less training than employees with a permanent contract (ROA, 2018). The results of the interviews concluded that the participants did not receive any training besides the training that is needed in order to perform the tasks that need to be performed. However, the participants indicated that not receiving any training was not a problem and that it did not affect their commitment in any way. Some of them could imagine that if they received training they would be very grateful towards the company, but that it still would not affect their

commitment. The participants claimed that this is probably due to the fact that many of them looked upon their job as just a side job, and many claimed that training is more appropriate when it is a ‘real’ full-time job. This statement is supported by the fact that the two

participants who did work full-time reported that they would like to receive training. However, they stated that not receiving training did not influence their commitment.

6.1.3.

Future Intentions

Besides training, there are other ways for organizations to increase the psychological contract with their employees. Providing opportunities to grow within the company for

example. At this company, the participants indicated that it was possible to grow within the company relatively quick. One participant was a perfect example, as he/she had gotten a promotion only after a month of employment. He/she believed that this was probably the case due to the fact that he/she showed high commitment towards the company. However, he/she was aware of the fact that there was going to be an open spot for a supervisor which actively made him/her show his/her commitment to the company. The results showed that the high commitment of the supervisors was not only a reason for their promotion, but also increased their commitment due to the given responsibility. This sense of responsibility will be discussed later on in this section of the report. Not all of the participants had the

aspiration to grow within the company, which resulted in the fact that these opportunities to grow within the company did not affect their commitment. The reason for the absence of that aspiration was the fact that they did not see themselves working for this company for a very long time. Mostly due to the fact that they looked upon this job as just a side job. On the other hand, people who did see themselves working for the company for a long period of time were usually interested in the opportunity to grow within the company. Most of these participants claimed that these aspirations affected their commitment in a positive way. After analyzing the results, it may be concluded that, within this study, the opportunities to grow within the company only affects the commitment of the participants who see themselves working for the company for a long period of time. And that it does not affect the commitment of participants who look upon this job as just a side job.

6.1.4.

Organizational culture and organizational structure

Another way for organizations to increase the psychological contract with their employees is with their management style. As Meyer & Allen (1997) claimed, commitment of employees is affected by the management style of a company. This is supported by the results of the interviews. The management style was perceived as very positive. An example that was given by the participants was a lack of hierarchy within the company. The supervisor was seen as very reachable and helpful, which contributed to the work atmosphere of the

company. Participants also reported that the company was very involved with the employees and that the company provides all kinds of extra’s like unlimited food and drinks, beer and

pizza nights, and hub parties. Participants claimed that because they felt like the company was investing in them, they wanted to invest in the company as well. All of the participants reported that the management style of the company affected their commitment in a very positive way. Of all the ways that the company can try to increase the psychological contract they have with the employees, management style is the factor that influenced the

commitment of the employees the most within this study. This may be the case because receiving training and opportunities to grow within the company only applies to employees who work full-time or see themselves working for the company for a long period of time. The management style of the company on the other hand applies to every employee, also to those who look upon their jobs as just side jobs.

The psychological contract can be increased by the company, but they can also damage it. McDonald & Makin (2000) stated that the affective and normative commitment is higher for people working on the basis of a temporary contract than for people working on the basis of a permanent contract. Continuance commitment, however, was higher for

employees with a permanent contract. They claimed that this might be the reason because people working on the basis of a temporary contract have spent less time with the

organization than people working with a permanent contract, which means that the chance of violations of the psychological contract is smaller. They claim that these violations can lead to decreased affective and normative organizational commitment (McDonald & Makin, 2000). These claims are supported by the results of the interviews. One participant claimed that his/her commitment would always be the same, except when the relation with the company would have been damaged. It had not happen yet, but the participant said that if it did, it would affect his/her commitment negatively. Another participant did experience an incident in which the relationship with the company was damaged. This participant was the only

participant who had been working for the company for longer than a year, which is in line with the claims of McDonald & Makin (2000) that people working on the basis of a temporary contract have spent less time with the company which means that the chance violations of the psychological contract is smaller. This participant reported to be less committed than before the incident happened that damaged his/her relationship with the company. In

conclusion, this supports the claims by McDonald & Makin (2000) that people working on the basis of a temporary contract may be more committed than people with a permanent contract because there has been a smaller chance that their psychological contract with the company has been damaged. However, this participant was still very committed because that he/she felt that the positives outweighed the negatives.

6.1.5.

Other factors

Besides the theories that have been discussed in the theoretical framework, the results of the interviews brought forward some other factors that affected the commitment of the

participants. One of those factors is responsibility. Participants that felt some sort of

responsibility reported that that affected their commitment in a positive way. Also participants that did not have responsibility yet, but would like to grow within to company in order to get responsibility claimed that that affected their commitment positively. But the most important factor that was mentioned by the participants was the work atmosphere. All of the

participants were very positive about the work atmosphere within the company. And all of them claimed that this had massive impact on their affective commitment as they mentioned that they could not be easily attached to another company as much as to this one. It also affected their normative commitment in a positive way, as they claimed that they would feel guilty when leaving the company, not towards the company but towards their colleagues. The fact that this is a reason for an increased commitment for all of the participants probably is, as with management style, because it applies to all the participants. Not only for participants who see themselves grow within the company or stay with the company for a long period of time. One example that shows how important the work atmosphere can be for the

commitment. Out of all the participants he/she scored the lowest, and he/she was the only one who reported that his/her colleagues were not his/her ‘kind of people’ and that he/she did not really see them as friends. This shows that within this study, commitment was positively affected when the work atmosphere was perceived as very positive. But when the work atmosphere is perceived as less positive, it affects commitment negatively.

6.2.

Answer to the research question

Now that the results have been analyzed and have been compared to the theoretical

framework an answer can be provided to the research question: ‘Which factors influence the affective, continuance, and normative organizational commitment of employees working with a temporary contract at a relatively young company?’. In order to do so, the following sub-questions will be answered: 1) ‘Which factors influence the affective organizational

commitment of employees working with a temporary contract at a relatively young company?’ 2) ‘Which factors influence the continuance organizational commitment of employees

working with a temporary contract at a relatively young company?’ and 3) ‘Which factors influence the normative organizational commitment of employees working with a temporary contract at a relatively young company?’

First of all the affective commitment. The affective commitment of participants was affected by multiple factors. Training and opportunity to grow within the company affected only the participants who worked full-time or participants who had the intention of working for the company for a longer period of time. But the factors that affected the affective

commitment of the participant the most were the management style of the company and the work atmosphere. This may be the case because these factors apply to all the employees, and not only those who have grown within the company, want to grow within the company, or have the intention of working for the company for a longer period of time.

Secondly, the continuance commitment. This is the type of commitment that scored the lowest for the participants. This is probably due to the fact that every participant believed that there were enough alternatives and because most of the participants look at this job as just a side job. Only the participant who worked full-time and had the idea that his/her age was an issue had any continuance commitment.

Lastly, the normative commitment. Most of the participants had no normative commitment, they claimed that this was the case due to the fact that they looked at this job as just a side job. The people who did experience normative commitment did so because they would feel guilty towards their colleagues, not towards the company. This may be the case because every participant experienced the work atmosphere as very positive.

In conclusion, many of the factors that were claimed to affect the commitment of the participants only did so when they either had already grown within the company, had the aspiration to grow within the company, or had the intention to stay with the company for a longer period of time. The factors that influenced the commitment of the participants the most were the management style of the company and the work atmosphere. This shows that, within this study, the factors that apply to every employee are the ones that affect the commitment the most.

6.3.

Limitations

This research does have some limitations. First of all, the scope of this research is very limited. The data gathered in order to answer the research question all came from one company. Not only did it come from one company, all the participants worked in the same branch. It may be the case that the results found here are not the same results that would be found at another branch, or at another company. Another limitation of this research is the sample of participants. First of all, the sample of the research was small, with only ten