JOB INSECURITY AND JOB SATISFACTION: THE MODERATING
ROLES OF WORK CENTRALITY AND EMPLOYABILITY
Master thesis, MscBA, specialization Human Resource Management University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business
June 5, 2016
RUBEN VAN HET ENDE Studentnumber: 2774186
e-mail: b.r.van.het.ende@student.rug.nl
JOB INSECURITY AND JOB SATISFACTION: THE MODERATING
ROLES OF WORK CENTRALITY AND EMPLOYABILITY
Although considerable research has focused on the relationship between job insecurity and job satisfaction, little research has examined how work centrality and employability moderate this relationship, especially with respect to traditional and self-employment. In this paper is proposed that job insecurity negatively influences job satisfaction, that work centrality negatively moderates this relationship, and that employability positively moderate this relationship. These moderating effects are expected to be stronger for self-employed than for traditional workers. In order to test the hypotheses, survey data from the International Social Survey Programme were used. Contrary to the proposed hypotheses, results from mixed models linear regression indicate a positive influence of work centrality on job satisfaction. Additionally, results show a weak indication that for self-employed workers job insecurity influences job satisfaction less negatively, as higher levels of employability positively moderate the relationship, as opposed to traditional workers. Important outcomes of the study are that high levels of work centrality and subjective income act as barriers against the negative influence of job insecurity on job satisfaction, for self-employed as well as traditional workers.
1. INTRODUCTION
the major causes of this shift is due to macroeconomic conditions such as recession, which is associated with stronger incentives for firms to offer short-term jobs and therefore with increased hiring’s on temporary basis and hiring’s of independent contractors such as self-employed workers (Holmlund & Storrie, 2002; Kalleberg, 2000).
The increase in use of flexible employment led to an increase in studies that focused on the impact of job insecurity -that came along with this flexibility- on job satisfaction. Starting point of most of these studies was that workers committed to temporary jobs because they needed those jobs, despite still preferring permanent jobs. Multiple studies therefore proposed and found that job insecurity led to decreased job satisfaction (e.g. De Cuyper, Notelaers & De Witte, 2009; Zheng, Diaz, Tang & Tang, 2014). These studies were conducted from a perspective in which extrinsic motivational factors caused workers to engage in temporary jobs (Holmlund & Storrie, 2002; Matouschek et al., 2004). More recent research takes another stance which is based on the concept of boundary less careers (‘free’ workers), in which workers have a preference for flexibility and therefore seek fixed-term and temporary contracts by choice (Capelli, 1999). These studies have the notion that not only extrinsic motivators cause workers to engage in temporary jobs, but that it is also contingent upon preferences and ascriptive attributes (e.g. gender, race or class) of the workers and hence these workers voluntarily choose to engage in flexible and temporary jobs (Rogers, 2000).
a part of contract flexibility) becomes less impactful on one’s job satisfaction if other factors compensate or negate the negative influence of the insecurity.
This study proposes two factors that influence the relationship between job insecurity and job satisfaction: work centrality and employability. Work centrality is an important aspect of work ethics (Miller, Woehr & Hudspeth, 2001) and a psychological construct that refers to the degree of importance that work plays in one’s life (Paullay, Alliger & Stone-Romero, 1994). High levels of work centrality are expected to increase the negative relationship between job insecurity and job satisfaction since it endangers one’s possibility to perform the activity of working which high value is ascribed to (Bal & Kooij, 2011). The second moderating variable, employability, is concerned with a persons’ perception about his possibilities to achieve a new job (Berntson & Marklund, 2007). High levels of employability are likely to lower the strain caused by job insecurity as it provides a source of control over one’s career, hence negating the negative influence on job satisfaction (Fugate, Kinicki & Ashforth, 2004).
Although both moderators have been subject to research with respect to job insecurity and job satisfaction in some studies already (e.g. De Cuyper, et al., 2009; Stiglbauer, Batinic, & Jodlbauer 2012), this study uses the concepts in a unique dimension by comparing organizationally employed workers to the so-called self-employed workers. Analyzing these differences provides insight in why groups of workers, in this case the organizationally- and self-employed, choose for their specific labor situations and how they are influenced by the associated uncertainties.
therefore expected to experience less negative effects of the associated job insecurity on job satisfaction. Levels of work centrality and employability of the self-employed are also likely to differ from those of organizationally employed workers as the self-employed are generally connected to multiple organizations, responsible for their own employment and consequently bear the constant pressure of having to generate income to maintain a living, connoting different work attitudes.
The guiding research question therefore is;
How do work centrality and employability influence the relationship between job insecurity and job satisfaction and how does this differ between the self-employed and traditional
workers?
2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
Job insecurity and job satisfaction
Job satisfaction is a subjective cognitive as well as affective judgement about facets that a specific job encompasses, such as work, pay or promotion opportunities, and a judgement about the job in a global sense (Davis & Katzman, 1997). Job satisfaction is a factor of the extent to which one’s needs are met in a work setting, which can be intrinsic as well as extrinsic (Porter & Kramer, 2004). Likewise with job insecurity, this study focuses on one’s job satisfaction in general, therefore excluding specific job aspects (Judge, Thoresen, Bono & Patton, 2001). Previous research has shown that job insecurity has a negative impact on job satisfaction, (caused by job security dissatisfaction), and hence, multiple studies reported a negative association between job insecurity and job satisfaction (e.g. Ashford et al., 1989; Probst, 2000). Furthermore multiple studies found that job insecurity induced ambiguity and uncertainty, causing psychological distress, depression and anxiety (Roskies, Louis-Guerin & Fornier, 1993) and that it led to increased negative emotional feelings and mental/emotional exhaustion (Van Vuuren, Klandermans, Jacobson, & Hartley, 1991). Consequently, job insecurity can result in decreased motivation and les swillingness to thrive (Zheng et al., 2014). In all, prior research is dominated by results that indicate that job insecurity negatively influences job satisfaction and therefore the first proposition reads:
Hypothesis 1: Job insecurity is negatively associated to job satisfaction; high job insecurity leads to low job satisfaction.
Traditional and self-employed workers without personnel
based on a limited or open-ended period of time, but generally with a long-term focus (Kalleberg & Rognes, 2000). The traditional workers are commonly viewed as performing a ‘specific’ job within an organization, such as a receptionist or HR-manager. Generally, they are committed to a single organization, which may be through identification with tasks or goals, through continuance (i.e. because of lack of acceptable alternatives) and through normative commitment (such as pressure or expectations) (Meyer & Allen, 1997). The contract of a ‘classic’ employment offers relatively high levels of job security, continuity and dependability for employees; not only through contractual agreements but also through legal regulations (Sverke, Gallagher & Hellgren, 1999). Consequently, traditional workers expect their employer to provide this job security (De Cuyper & De Witte, 2006).
Hypothesis 2: The negative influence of job insecurity on job satisfaction is stronger for traditional workers than for self-employed workers.
One of the core features of job insecurity and its relation to job satisfaction is that it is a subjective experience, implying that the same situation may be perceived differently per group or individual (Kinnunen, Mäkikangas, Mauno & De Cuyper, 2014). Subsequently within different types of employment the influence of job insecurity on job satisfaction outcomes differs. To analyze this relationship further the upcoming sections focus on the relationship between job insecurity and job satisfaction under moderation of work centrality and employability and the expected differences between the self-employed and traditional workers.
Job insecurity, job satisfaction and work centrality
Throughout the literature work centrality has been used interchangeably with the concept of job involvement (Kostek, 2012). But, mistakenly, rather than being a concept in which one’s psychological identification with a certain job is at hand, work centrality reflects one’s ascribed value to work in general (Kanungo, 1982; Lodahl & Kejner, 1965). Work centrality is a term that is used to describe the phenomenon in which an individual ascribes high life importance to the activity of working (kostek, 2012) and reflects the extent to which the activity of working is preferred over non-work related activities (Paullay et al., 1994). More specifically, as characterized by Mannheim (1975), work centrality is the extent to which one’s mental processes are dominated by work related contents, which concerns the degree of concern, knowledge and interest in the work role in relation to other activities.
but also be much more important than simply a means to an end (Charles & James, 2003). One’s work centrality is shaped by the socialization of the individual, that is, by their families, friends, religion or culture. In addition, one may come to believe through own experiences, among which are employment characteristics, that work is a central component to them in their life (Paullay et al.,1994).
Workers with high levels of work centrality are cognitively and attitudinally embedded in their work (Greenhalgh & Rosenblatt, 2010; Mannheim, 1975), and therefore work-related experiences become part of the worker’s identity. When workers with high levels of work centrality are confronted with high levels of job insecurity, it is likely to affect their individual self-concept to a greater extent than it does to workers that attach higher value to life domains other than work (Bal & Kooij, 2011). On the other hand, workers who experience e.g. a strong family identity as opposed to a strong career identity, are expected to experience lower stress levels caused by job insecurity as work is not the most important part of their life (Gowan, 2012). In all, strain caused by job insecurity as a stressor, developed from uncontrollability and unpredictability, is higher for workers with high levels of work centrality and hence, dissatisfaction with their job is expected to increase (Cuyper, et al., 2009).
Hypothesis 3: High levels of work centrality will lead to lower levels of job satisfaction when job insecurity is high.
The moderating role of work centrality; traditional and self-employment
contents (Mannheim, 1975), which increases beliefs about the centrality of work. Cohrs, Abele and Dette (2006) add to that by arguing that autonomy, one of the main features of self-employment, leads to greater willingness to invest more time in work. In addition, workers who experience expressive work events (due to autonomy, responsibility, variety etc.) are also found to have higher work centrality than those who did not. These circumstances are generally more the case for self- rather than traditional employment, and thus indicate higher levels of work centrality for the self-employed (Mannheim, Baruch & Tall, 1997; MOW, 1987). Lastly, self-employment is likely to affect one’s perception of the amount of work to perform to guarantee prosperity of their self-employment, resulting in longer working hours compared to traditional workers (Lewin-Epstein & Yuchtman-Yar, 1991), hence resulting in higher work centrality (Sharabi & Harpaz, 2010). In all, because work centrality is expected to be higher for self-employed workers than for traditional workers, it is likely to increase the negative relationship between job insecurity and job satisfaction for the self-employed.
Hypothesis 4a: Self-employed workers experience higher levels of work centrality than traditional workers.
Hypothesis 4b: High levels of work centrality will lead to lower levels of job satisfaction when job insecurity is high and this effect is stronger for self- than for traditional employed
workers.
Job insecurity, job satisfaction and employability
commitments that shape his working life (Gazier, 2001). Employability amounts to one’s autonomy and empowerment in the development of his career (Schmid, 2006) and generates the feeling of being in control over the career (Berntson & Marklund, 2007). Employees who perceive their employability to be high evaluate themselves as skilled and confident, and therefore perceive the possibility of possible job loss as less harmful as they estimate their chances to find a new job to be significant (Fugate et al., 2004). Therefore it is argued that more employable workers will be harmed less by the event of possible job loss. Consequently, employability is assumed to reduce strain caused by job insecurity and therefore expected to positively relate to job satisfaction (Berntson & Marklund, 2007; Cuyper, et al., 2009).
Hypothesis 5: High levels of employability will lead to higher levels of job satisfaction when job insecurity is high.
The moderating role of employability; traditional and self-employment
with the self-employed without personnel, who search by choice for contractual arrangements with multiple organizations (Capelli, 1999; Romaniuk & Snart, 2000).
Employability is a concept that relates closely to the concept of self-employment. Kanter (1993) argues that defining characteristics of employability are the ‘creation of opportunities’ and ‘entrepreneurialism’, and Savickas (2000) relates employability to employment by pointing at a constructivist perspective which concentrates on self-organization. These working conditions are preferred by the self-employed along with the associated flexibility. In all, the self-employed are expected to have higher levels of employability than traditional workers.
Hypothesis 6a: Self-employed workers experience higher levels of employability than traditional workers.
Hypothesis 6b: High levels of employability will lead to higher levels of job satisfaction when job insecurity is high and this effect is stronger for self- than for traditional employed
workers.
3. METHOD
The ISSP contains a series of panel data sets in which the core module changes on a yearly basis. The module Work Orientations is used for this study as it covers important variables such as job characteristics, subjective job experiences and work centrality. Accordingly, the Work Orientations survey contains all the necessary data to cover all relevant variables for the present study. The data used in this paper are the survey results from the year 2005, data from earlier years (1989 and 1997) are not used as they are perceived to be outdated. Additionally, the Work Orientations survey of 2015 is not used since the data is not accessible yet.
Data and Sample
The ISSP Work Orientations III (2005) was divided into those who indicated to be employed for waged labor and those who indicated to be employed. Additionally the self-employed were split into those working as self-self-employed without personnel. The age limit for both groups was restricted from 20 till 65 and the minimum working hours were set to at least 30. The number of respondents that were included in the analysis after dividing the data into employed and self-employed without personnel was 18959, from which 17202 worked for an employer and 1757 were self-employed without personnel. 10352 of these participants were male and 8601 female; the remaining six were registered as missing. Respondents from 32 countries participated to the survey; an overview is presented in the appendix.
Measures
Job satisfaction. To measure one’s job satisfaction, the question ‘How satisfied are you in your (main) job?’ (Q20) was used. The question was measured on a 7 point scale running from ‘Completely satisfied’ (1) to ‘Completely dissatisfied’ (7). In addition (8) ‘Can’t choose’ was available. For better interpretations the item was recoded to (1) ‘Completely dissatisfied’ and (7) ‘Completely satisfied’.
Employability. Perceived employability was measured with the question ‘How difficult or easy do you think it would be for you to find a job at least as good as your current one? (Q22). The item was measured on a 5 point scale in which (1) indicated ‘Very easy’ and (5) indicated ‘Very difficult’. Additionally the option ‘Can’t choose’ was available (8). For better interpretations the item was recoded to (1) ‘Very difficult’ to (5) ‘Very easy’.
Work centrality. Two different statements, based on Paullay et al., (1994), were used
to measure the importance that one ascribes to his work in his life. The items were ‘A job is just a way of earning money – no more’ and ‘I would enjoy having a paid job even if I did not need the money. The items were measured on a 5 point scale, ranging from ‘strongly agree (1) to ‘strongly disagree’ (5). The option ‘Can’t choose’ was included (8). After recoding the second item Cronbach’s alpha still indicated an unreliable scale (α = 0.37). Both
measurements were therefore analyzed as separate moderators (used as work centrality ‘1’ and ‘2’).
Covariates. To control whether sociodemographic differences might lead to spurious
Statistical analyses
All data has been measured on individual level. As recommended by Aiken and West (1991) the independent variables and moderators (job insecurity, work centrality 1 & 2 and employability) were standardized to compute the interaction between the variables. Since the survey is conducted in multiple countries, mixed model linear regression analysis were used to test for interaction effects with and without control variables.
4. RESULTS
This section illustrates the statistical results. Firstly the descriptive statistics are presented, secondly a correlational analysis is depicted and lastly the hypotheses are tested.
TABLE 1 Descriptive statistics
Traditional employment Self-employment
Correlations
Table 2 displays Pearson zero-order correlations of the variables included in this study. The correlations provide information about the associations between variables. The significant correlations that are related to the variables job insecurity, job satisfaction, work centrality (1&2) and employability are outlined below.
Hypothesis testing
Hypothesis 1 posited that high levels of job insecurity are related to a decrease in job satisfaction. Table 2 depicts this negative association. To test whether causalities exist in this relationship, additional mixed model regression analysis was conducted. Table 3 illustrates that an increase in job insecurity negatively relates to job satisfaction (b = -.272, SE b = .008, p = <.001), and with control variables (b = -.183, SE b = .008, p = <.001).
TABLE 3
Relation job insecurity and job satisfaction
Equation (iii) Model 1 Estimate Std. Error Equation (iii) Model 2 Estimate Std. Error Intercept 5.854** .020 4.590** .054 Insecurity -.272** .008 -.183** .008 Sex -.075** .017 Age -.007** .000 Education -.005 .006 Partner .044* .020 Children .024 .018 Subjective income .282** .008 N 18959 18959 -2 Restricted Log Likelihood 55553 54368 Residual variance .000 .000 Intercept variance .000 .003
1. Note: *p < .05, **p < .01 (2-tailed significance)
(b = -.022, SE b = .026, p = .61). With covariates added, the results still indicated a significant positive relation between the dummy variable for self-employment and job satisfaction (b = .253, SE b = .071, p = <.01), and again an insignificant influence of the interaction between job insecurity and the self-employment dummy on job satisfaction (b = -.013, SE b = .025, p = .61).
TABLE 4
Relation job insecurity and job satisfaction: differences in employment type
Equation (iii) Model 1 Estimate Std. Error Equation (iii) Model 2 Estimate Std. Error Intercept 5.834** .021 4.575** .054 Insecurity -.273** .008 -.185** .008 Self-employment .318** .073 .253** .071 Interaction -.022 .026 -.013 .025 Sex -.081** .017 Age -.006** .001 Education .002 .006 Partner .043* .020 Children -.016 .018 Subjective income .280** .008 N 18959 18959 -2 Restricted Log Likelihood 55475 54312 Residual variance .000 .000 Intercept variance .000 .003
2. Note: *p < .05, **p < .01 (2-tailed significance)
positive interaction effect of job insecurity and work centrality 1 on job satisfaction (b = .042, SE b = 0.008, p = <.01).
The second work centrality variable also depicted a significant positive relationship with job satisfaction (b = .11, SE b = 0.009, p = <.001). Addition of control variables did not lead to spurious outcomes (b = .093, SE b = 0.008, p = <.001). Figure 2 depicts an insignificant influence of the interaction between job insecurity and work centrality 2 on job satisfaction (b = .001, SE b = 0.008, p = .89).
Figure 1
Moderating role of work centrality 1
4,2 4,4 4,6 4,8 5 5,2 5,4 5,6 5,8
Low Insecurity High Insecurity
Figure 2
Moderating role of work centrality 2
Hypothesis 4a posited that self-employed workers experience higher levels of work centrality than traditional workers. The descriptive statistics indicate higher levels of work centrality 1 for traditional workers (M = 3.19, SD = 1.29 and M = 3.02, SD = 1.281) and approximately equal levels of work centrality 2 (M = 3.55, SD = 1.405 and M = 3.56, SD = 1.382).
Hypothesis 4b predicted that self-employed workers experience more negative effects from job insecurity on their job satisfaction than traditional workers because of differing levels of work centrality. Results of mixed model regression analysis are presented in table 5 and illustrate that there is no significant interaction effect between insecurity and self-employment (b = -.033, SE b = 0.029, p = .25), nor between centrality 1 and self- employment (b = -.026, SE b = 0.030, p = .39). Table 5 also displays a 3-way interaction between the dummy for self-employment, work centrality 1 and job insecurity and its influence on job satisfaction, which does not indicate an interaction effect either (b = .004, SE b = 0.028, p = .88). 4,2 4,4 4,6 4,8 5 5,2 5,4 5,6 5,8
Low Insecurity High Insecurity
Table 5
Moderation centrality 1: differences in employment type
Equation (iii) Model 1 Estimate Std. Error Equation (iii) Model 2 Estimate Std. Error Intercept 5.182** .009 4.278** .048 Insecurity -.291** .009 -.201** .009 Centrality 1 .176** .009 .154** .009 Self-employment .282** .030 .223** .030 Insec*Centr 1 .040** .009 .031** .008 Insec*Selfempl -.033 .029 -.019 .028 Centr 1*Selfempl -.026 .030 -.001 .029 3-way interaction .004 .028 -.007 .027 Sex .057** .017 Age .006** .001 Education -.024** .006 Partner -.033 .020 Children -.022 .018 Subjective income .267** .008 N 18959 18959 -2 Restricted Log Likelihood 54395 53353 Residual variance 0.00 .000 Intercept variance 0.00 .002
1. Note: *p < .05, **p < .01 (2-tailed significance)
Table 6
Moderation centrality 2: differences in employment type
Equation (iii) Model 1 Estimate Std. Error Equation (iii) Model 2 Estimate Std. Error Intercept 5.181** .009 4.172** .047 Insecurity -.301** .009 -.204** .009 Centrality 2 .117** .009 .101** .009 Self-employment .265** .030 .219** .030 Insec*Centr 2 -.001 .009 -.006 .008 Insec*Selfempl -.032 .030 -.020 .028 Centr 2*Selfempl -.116** .031 -.102** .030 3-way interaction .024 .029 .028 .028 Sex .072** .017 Age .006** .001 Education -.003 .006 Partner -.043* .020 Children -.016 .018 Subjective income .275** .008 N 18959 18959 -2 Restricted Log Likelihood 55310 54182 Residual variance .000 .000 Intercept variance .000 .002
1. Note: *p < .05, **p < .01 (2-tailed significance)
Figure 3
Moderating role of employability
Hypothesis 6a posited that self-employed workers have higher levels employability than traditional workers. The descriptive statistics display higher levels of employability for self-employed workers (M = 2.60, SD = 1.15 and M = 2.67, SD = 1.265).
Hypothesis 6b suggested that self-employed workers experience less negative effects from job insecurity on their job satisfaction than traditional workers because of the moderating role of employability. Table 7 depicts a significant negative interaction effect of job insecurity and employability on job satisfaction without covariates (b = -.025, SE b = 0.009, p = .01), and a slightly less but still significantly negative effect with covariates (b = -.024, SE b = 0.009, p = .01. Furthermore table 7 illustrates a significant interaction effect of employability and self-employment on job satisfaction (b = .075, SE b = 0.028, p = .01), and a marginally significant interaction effect with control variables added (b = .051, SE b = 0.028, p = .06). Additionally table 7 displays the results from the 3-way interaction between job insecurity, employability and the dummy variable for self-employed workers, and its influence on job satisfaction. Without control variables the effect is insignificant (b = .037, SE
4,4 4,6 4,8 5 5,2 5,4 5,6
Low Insecurity High Insecurity
b = 0.027, p = .17), but with control variables added the effect becomes marginally significant (b = .048, SE b = 0.028, p = .07).
Table 7
Moderation of employability: differences in employment type
Equation (iii) Model 1 Estimate Std. Error Equation (iii) Model 2 Estimate Std. Error Intercept 5.18** .009 4.147** .048 Insecurity -.310** .009 -.211** .009 Employability -.037** .009 -.033** .009 Self-employment .272** .031 .231** .030 Insec*Employ -.025* .009 -.024* .009 Insec*Selfempl .012 .030 .019 .029 Employ*Selfempl .074* .028 .051† .028 3-way interaction .037 .027 .048† .026 Sex .082** .017 Age .006** .001 Education .002 .006 Partner -.041* .020 Children -.013 .018 Subjective income .277** .009 N 18959 18959 -2 Restricted Log Likelihood 53587 52475 Residual variance .000 .000 Intercept variance .000 .002
1. Note: p†< .10, *p < .05, **p < .01 (2-tailed significance)
DISCUSSION
Findings
tested. The first hypothesis suggested that job insecurity negatively relates to job satisfaction and this hypothesis was confirmed. The second hypothesis posited that traditional workers have lower levels of job satisfaction than self-employed workers when job insecurity is high. Despite the result that self-employment leads to higher levels of job satisfaction than traditional employment, no relationship was found to confirm this hypothesis.
Hypothesis 3 predicted that high levels of work centrality lead to lower levels of job satisfaction when job insecurity is high. Two measures of work centrality were used to test the hypothesis. Results indicated that both variables of work centrality related positively to job satisfaction, and that interaction between work centrality 1 and job insecurity positively influences job satisfaction. Results of work centrality 2 did not indicate interaction effects with job insecurity on job satisfaction. Hence, hypothesis 3 was rejected. Hypothesis 4a predicted higher levels of work centrality for self-employed workers, which was also disconfirmed. Based on this hypothesis and in combination with hypothesis 3, 4b posited that self-employed workers would experience more negative effects from job-insecurity on job satisfaction, as their work centrality would be higher. Three-way interactions did not indicate a possible causality in this relationship, therefore hypothesis 4b was rejected also.
satisfaction. Results disconfirmed that employability positively influences job satisfaction and indicated that employability interacts positively with job insecurity. Despite these findings, results did indicate a positive interaction between being self-employed and employability, and a marginally significant positive influence of the interaction between being self-employed, job insecurity and employability on job satisfaction, thus weakly supporting hypothesis 6b.
Additionally, results indicate that subjective income is positively associated to work centrality 1, and has a strong positive relationship with job satisfaction.
Theoretical Implications
Few of the proposed hypotheses were confirmed and therefore the focus in this section is to discuss and possibly explain some of these findings. The results for hypothesis 2 indicate that the negative influence of job insecurity on job satisfaction is not stronger for traditional workers than for self-employed workers, and this outcome probably prohibited significant results to trigger for hypothesis 4b and 6b. The outcome is a strange phenomenon as the descriptive results do indicate higher levels of job insecurity for the self-employed, while still having higher levels of job satisfaction than traditional workers. Because results do not indicate that self-employed workers experience less negative effects from job insecurity but still have higher levels of job satisfaction, the most likely alternative is that other factors heavily buffered the job satisfaction of the self-employed. Results appear to indicate that one of these factors is subjective income. Other possible factors are independence, optimism, and low levels of risk aversion (Bradley and Roberts, 2004).
was not anticipated for, it can be argued that whereas self-employed workers are achievement motivated and therefore possibly mainly work to guarantee prosperity of their self-employment (Collins, Hanges & Locke, 2004.), traditional employed workers possibly search for more than purely monetary rewards in their jobs, such as relations with colleagues, subordinates or superiors, or personal fulfillment (Templer, Armstrong-Stassen & Cattaneo, 2010). Additionally traditional employment provides stability and gives meaning to one’s life, which are values that may be just as important as the values that are granted by self-employment (Joelson & Wahlquist, 1987).
The third finding being addressed is the positive influence of the interaction effect between work centrality 1 and job insecurity on job satisfaction. The initial argument was that because workers with high levels of work centrality are cognitively and attitudinally embedded in their work, they would experience more negative effects of job insecurity than those with lower levels of work centrality. The opposite appears to be true. The interaction effect positively influences job satisfaction, which is possibly explained by the question raised in the introduction section, whether it might be true that certain factors compensate the negative influence of job insecurity. Per example Kostek (2012) found that work centrality strongly relates to job satisfaction. From this perspective it might be true that workers with higher levels of work centrality are more satisfied with a more uncertain job than workers with lower levels of centrality, purely because they value the sole ability to work more than workers with lower levels of work centrality. Sverke et al., (2002) also found that high levels of work centrality may act as a possible buffer for job satisfaction as work centrality positively influences attitudes and health (Bernhard-Oettel, Isaksson & Bellaagh, 2008).
Vos, De Hauw & Van der Heijden, 2011). One of the possible explanations is that workers with high levels of employability may feel that they settled for less than they are capable of in their job, and are therefore less satisfied with the job that is too easy to perform (Gowan, 2012). Another possible explanation is based on Leana and Feldman (1990) who found that the level of attachment to a job increases the level of satisfaction with that job, which makes it plausible that workers with high levels of employability attach less to a job, do not identify with their job, and therefore feel less satisfied with it. This would also explain the (weak) support for hypothesis 6b, in which was argued that self-employed workers experience less negative effects from job insecurity on job satisfaction than traditional workers, as higher levels of employability would act as a buffer. That is, self-employed workers bear more responsibility and economic pressure than the traditional workers, therefore feel more attached to their self-employed job and hence, employability influences their job satisfaction more positively.
Practical implications
and job satisfaction. Because results indicate that subjective income greatly improves job satisfaction, subjective income also acts as a buffer for the negative influence of job insecurity on job satisfaction. This, in turn, implies that although intrinsic motives are important, extrinsic motivators also significantly contribute to one’s job satisfaction, for self-employed as well as traditional employed workers..
Strong and weak points
Future research ideas
Although not anticipated, some remarkable results were found during this study. The first is the interaction effect of job insecurity with work centrality 1. That is, whether non-reward related work motivation counteracts the negative effect of job insecurity on job satisfaction. Such a study would provide more insights in how negative effects of job insecurity can be negated. Related to this relationship is the positive influence of subjective income on job satisfaction. Results throughout this study show a positive relationship between these variables, even when applicants indicated that they would keep working when they would not need the money. Future research could therefore also be pointed towards a moderating role of subjective income with respect to the relationship between job insecurity and job satisfaction.
REFERENCES
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. 1991. Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting
Interactions. Sage: London.
Allen, W. D., & Curinton, W. P. 2014. The Self-Employment of Men and Women: What are their Motivations? Journal of Labor Research, 14(2): 143-161.
Ashford, S., Lee, C., & Bobko, P. 1989. Content, causes, and consequences of job insecurity: A theory-based measure and substantive test. Academy of Management Journal, 32(4): 803–829.
Bal, P. M., & Kooij, T. A. M. 2011. The relationship between work centrality, psychological contracts and job attitudes: the influence of age. European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, 20(4): 497-523.
Bernhard-Oettel, C., Isaksson, K., & Bellaagh, K. 2008. Patterns of contract motives and work involvement in temporary work: relationships to work-related and general well-being. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 29(4): 565-591.
Berntson, E., & Marklund, S. 2007. The relationship between employability and subsequent health. Work and Stress, 21: 279-292.
Bradley, D. E. & Roberts, J. A. 2004. Self-employment and job satisfaction: Investigating the role of self-efficacy, depression and seniority. Journal of Small Business
Management, 42(1): 37-58.
Capelli, P. 1999. The New Deal at Work. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Cash, M., & Gardner, D. 2011. Cognitive hardiness, appraisal and coping: comparing two
transactional models. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 26(8): 446-464.
Charles, N., & James, E. 2003. Gender and work orientations in conditions of job insecurity.
Cohrs, J. C., Abele, A. E., & Dette, D. E. 2006. Integrating situational and dispositional determinants of job satisfaction: findings from three samples of professionals. The
Journal of Psychology, 140: 363-395.
Collings, C. J., Hanges, P. J., & Locke, E. A. 2004. The relationship of achievement
motivation to entrepreneurial behavior: A meta-analysis. Human Performance, 17(1): 95-117.
Davis, C., & Katzman, M. 1997. Body esteem, weight satisfaction, depression, and self-esteem among Chinese males and females in Hong Kong. Sex Roles, 36(7): 449-459. De Cuyper, N., & De Witte, H. 2006. The impact of job insecurity on contract type and
attitudes, well-being and behavioural reports: A psychological contract perspective.
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 79: 395-409.
De Cuyper, N., Notelaers, G., & De Witte, H. 2009. Job Insecurity and employability in fixed-term contractors, agency workers, and permanent workers: Associations with job satisfation and affective organizational commitment. Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, 14(2): 193-205.
De Vos, A., De Hauw, S., & Van der Heijden, B. 2011. Competency development and career success: the mediating role of employability. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 79(2): 438-447.
De Witte, H. 1999. Job insecurity and psychological well-being: review of the literature and exploration of some unresolved issues. European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, 8: 155–177.
Dekker, R., & Kösters L. 2011. De ontmythologisering van de zzp-trend. Tijdschrift voor
Arbeidsvraagstukken, 27(3): 248–263.
Gazier, B. (2001) ‘Employability—The Complexity of a Policy Notion’. In Weinert, P., Baukens, M., Bollerot, P., Pineschi-Gapenne, M. & Walwei, U. (eds), Employability:
From Theory to Practice, Somerset, NJ: Transaction Publishers: 3–23.
Gallagher, D. G., & Sverke, M. 2005. Contingent employment contracts: are existing
employment theories still relevant? Economic and Industrial Democracy, 26(2): 181-203.
Gowan, M. A. 2012. Employability, well-being and job satisfaction following a job loss.
Managerial Pyschology, 27(8): 780-798.
Greenhalgh, L., & Rosenblatt, Z. 2010. Evolution of research on job insecurity. International
Studies of Management and Organization, 40: 6–19.
Hilbrecht, M., & Lero, D. S. 2014. Self-employment and family life: constructing work-life balance when you’re always on’. Community, Work & Family, 17(1); 20-42. Holmlund, B., & Storrie, D. 2002. Temporary work in turbulent times: The Swedish
experience. The Economic Journal, 112: 245–269.
Joelson, L., & Wahlquist, L. 1987. The psychological meaning of job insecurity and job loss: results of a longitudinal study. Social Science and Medicine, 25(2): 179-182.
Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Bono, J. E., & Patton, G. K. 2001. The job satisfaction-job performance relationship: a qualitative and quantitative review. Psychological
Bulletin, 127(3): 376-407.
Kalleberg, A. L. 2000. Nonstandard Employment Relations: Part-Time, Temporary and Contract Work. Annual Review of Sociology, 26: 341-365.
Kanter, R. M. 1993. The view from the 1990s: How the global economy is reshaping corporate power and careers. Afterword to the 1993 edition. In Kanter, R. M. (ed)
Men and woman of the corporation, New York, NY: Basic Books: 289-328.
Kanungo, R. N. 1982. Measurement of job and work involvement. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 67: 341-349.
Kinnunen, U., Mauno, S., Mäkikangas, A., Cuyper, N., & De Witte, H. 2014. Development of Perceived Job Insecurity Across Two Years: Associations With Antecedents and Employee Outcomes. American Psychological Association, 19(2): 243-258. Kostek, A. 2012. Work centrality: A meta-analysis of the nomological network. Graduate
College of Bowling Green State University: 1-30.
Leana, C., & Feldman, D. 1990. Individual responses to job loss: empirical findings from two field studies. Human Relations, 43(11): 1155-1181.
Lewin-Epstein, N., & Yuchtman-Yar, E. 1991. Health risks of self-employment. Work and
occupations, 18: 291-312.
Lodahl, T. M., & Kejner, M. 1965. The definition and measurement of job involvement.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 49: 24-33.
Loscocco, K. A. (1997). Work–family linkages among self-employed women and men.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 50: 204–226.
Mannheim, B. 1975. A comparative study of work centrality, job rewards and satisfaction.
Sociology of Work and Occupations: 79-102.
Matouschek, N., Ramezzana, P., & Robert-Nicoud, F. 2004. Labour Market Frictions, Job Insecurity and the Flexibility of the Employment Relationship. Centre for Economic
Performance: 1-37.
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. 1997. Commitment in the workplace: theory, research, and
application. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Miller, M., Woehr, D. J., & Hudspeth, N. 2001. The meaning and measurement of work ethic: construction and initial validation of a multidimensional inventory. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 59: 1-39.
Mottaz, C. J. 1985. The relative importance of intrinsic and extrinsic rewards as determinants of work satisfaction. The Sociological Quarterly, 26(3): 365-385.
MOW [Meaning of Working] International Research Team. 1987. The Meaning of Working. Academic Press: London.
Paullay, I. M., Alliger, G. M., & Stone-Romero, E .F. 1994. Construct validation of two instruments designed to measure job involvement and work centrality. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 79: 224-228.
Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. 2004. Strategy and society: the link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 84(12): 5-12.
Probst, T. M. 2000. Wedded to the job: Moderating effects of job involvement on the consequences of job insecurity. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5: 63– 73.
Pruijt, H., & Dérogée, P. 2010. Employability and job security, friends or foes? The
Rebitzer, J. B. 2008. Job Safety and Contract Workers in the Petrochemical Industry.
Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society, 34(1): 40-57.
Rogers, J. K. 2000. Temps: The Many Faces of the Changing Workplace. Cornell University Press: Ithaca.
Romaniuk, K., & Snart, F. 2000. Enhancing employability: The role of prior learning assessment and portfolios. Career Development International, 5(6): 318-322. Roskies, E., Louis-Guerin, C., & Fournier, C. 1993. Coping with job insecurity: How does
personality make a difference? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14: 617–630. Russell, M., & Cooper, M. L. 1995. Job stressors, job involvement and employee health: A
test of identity theory. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 68: 1-11.
Savickas, M. L. 2000. Renovating the psychology of careers for the twenty-first century. In Collin, A. & Young, R. A. (eds), The future of Career, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 53-68.
Schmid, G. 2006. Social Risk Management through Transitional Labour Markets.
Socio-Economic Review, 4: 1–33.
Segal, L. M., & Sullivan, D. G. 1997. The Growth of Temporary Services Work. Journal of
Economic Perspectives, 11: 117-136.
Sharabi, M., & Harpaz, I. 2010. Improving employees’ work centrality improves
organizational performance: work events and work centrality relationships. Human
Resource Development International, 13(4): 379-392.
Stanworth, C., & Stanworth, J. 1995. The self-employed without employees-autonomous or atypical? Industrial Relations Journal, 26(3): 221-229.
Stiglbauer, B., Batinic, B., & Jodlbauer, S. 2012. On the link between job insecurity and turnover intentions: moderated mediation by work involvement and well-being.
Journal of occupational Health Psychology, 17(3): 354-364.
Sverke, M., Gallagher, D. G., & Hellgren, G. 1999. Alternative work arrangements: job stress, well-being, and work attitudes among employees with different employment contracts. In K. Isaksson (ed), Health effects of the new labour market. Hingham, MA, USA: Kluwer: 145-167.
Sverke, M., Hellgren, J., & Näswall, K. 2002. No security: a meta-analysis and review of job insecurity and its consequences. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 7(3): 242-264.
Templer, A., Armstrong-Stassen, M., & Cattaneo, J. 2010. Antecedents of older workers’ motvies for continuing to work. Career Development International, 15(5) : 479-500. Wielers, R., & Raven, D. 2013. Part-time work and work norms in the Netherlands. European
Sociological Review, 29(1): 105-113.
Van Vuuren, T., Klandermans, B., Jacobson, D., & Hartley, J. (1991). Employees’ reactions to job insecurity. In J. Hartley, D. Jacobson, B. Klandermans, & Van Vuuren, T. (eds),
Job insecurity: Coping with jobs at risk. London: Sage: 79–103.
APPENDIX A: MODERATION TABLES
Table figure 1 Moderating role of work centrality 1
Equation (iii) Model 1 Estimate Std. Error Equation (iii) Model 2 Estimate Std. Error Intercept 5.208** .009 4.299** .047 Insecurity -.290** .009 -.199** .009 Centrality 1 .170** .009 .154** .009 Interaction .042** .008 .032** .008 Sex .050** .017 Age .006** .001 Education -.030** .006 Partner -.035 .020 Children -.030 .017 Subjective income .270** .008 N 18959 18959 -2 Restricted Log Likelihood 54487 53409 Residual variance .000 .000 Intercept variance .000 .002
1. Note: *p < .05, **p < .01 (2-tailed significance)
Table figure 2 Moderating role of work centrality 2
N 18959 18959 -2 Restricted Log
Likelihood 55402 54248
Residual variance .000 .000
Intercept variance .000 .002
3. Note: *p < .05, **p < .01 (2-tailed significance)
Table figure 3 Moderating role of Employability
Equation (iii) Model 1 Estimate Std. Error Equation (iii) Model 2 Estimate Std. Error Intercept 5.208** .009 4.166** .048 Insecurity -.319** .009 -.205** .009 Employability -.027** .009 -.024** .009 Interaction -.020* .008 -.018* .008 Sex .074** .017 Age .007** .001 Education -.005 .006 Partner -.043* .020 Children -.020 .018 Subjective income .280** .009 N 18959 18959 -2 Restricted Log Likelihood 53678 52542 Residual variance .000 .000 Intercept variance .000 .002
APPENDIX B: COUNTRY FILE FROM ISSP
Country Year Module Sample size National Survey
Australia 2005 Work Orientations III 1988 Australian Survey of Social
Attitudes (AuSSA) 2005 Belgium/ Flanders 2005 Work Orientations III 1338 Social-cultural Changes in
Flanders-Belgium 2005
Bulgaria 2005 Work Orientations III 1121 Bulgarian General Social
Survey (BGSS) 2005
Canada 2005 Work Orientations III 933
Cyprus 2005 Work Orientations III 1000
Czechoslv./Czech Republic 2005 Work Orientations III 1226 yes
Denmark 2005 Work Orientations III 1598 The Danes' work life 2006
Dominican Republic 2005 Work Orientations III 1958
Finland 2005 Work Orientations III 1345
France 2005 Work Orientations III 1620
Germany 2005 Work Orientations III 1701 German General Social
Survey (ALLBUS) 2006
Great Britain 2005 Work Orientations III 913 British Social Attitudes
(BSA) 2005
Hungary 2005 Work Orientations III 1012 TARKI Omnibus 2005/11
Ireland 2005 Work Orientations III 1001
Israel 2005 Work Orientations III 1184
Japan 2005 Work Orientations III 921 Japanese General Social
Survey (JGSS)
Latvia 2005 Work Orientations III 1067 yes
Mexico 2005 Work Orientations III 1401
Netherlands 2005 Work Orientations III 925
New Zealand 2005 Work Orientations III 1309 yes
Norway 2005 Work Orientations III 1322 yes
Philippines 2005 Work Orientations III 1200 yes
Portugal 2005 Work Orientations III 1837 yes
Russia 2005 Work Orientations III 1605 regular Omnibus Survey
Slovenia 2005 Work Orientations III 1002 Slovenian Public Opinion
(SJM) 2005
South Africa 2005 Work Orientations III 2884
South African Social Attitudes Survey (SASAS)
2005
South Korea 2005 Work Orientations III 1613 Korean General Social
Survey (KGSS) 2005
Spain 2005 Work Orientations III 1206 yes
Sweden 2005 Work Orientations III 1371
Switzerland 2005 Work Orientations III 1078 MOSAiCH 2005
Taiwan 2005 Work Orientations III 2171 Taiwan Social Change
Survey (TSCS) 2005
USA 2005 Work Orientations III 1518 General Social Survey
