Literature Review Of

7/29/2019 Literature Review Of

1/27

International Journal of Management Reviews Volume 9 Issue 4 pp. 000000 1

Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2007, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA

International Journal of Management Reviews (2007)

doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2370.2007.00221.x

BlackwellPublishingLtdOxford,UKIJMRInternationalJournalof ManagementReviews1460-8545BlackwellPublishingLtd 2007XXXORIGINALARTICLESLITERATUREREVIEWOF TEMPORARYEMPLOYMENTXX

Literature review of

theory and researchon the psychologicalimpact of temporary

employment: Towardsa conceptual model

Nele De Cuyper,

1

Jeroen de Jong, Hans De Witte,Kerstin Isaksson, Thomas Rigotti and Ren Schalk

The increased use of temporary contracts has instigated debates on possible implications foremployees attitudes, well-being and behaviour. The complex issues related to this debateare reviewed from a theoretical, empirical and conceptual point of view. First, the definitions

of temporary employment that are currently used in OECD countries are reviewed. Second,theoretical views concerning possible determinants are elaborated. The theoretical frame-works discussed include Work Stress Theory, Social Comparison Theory and Social ExchangeTheory. The determinants proposed in these theories have served to form the basis ofhypotheses on differences between temporary and permanent workers on variouspsychological outcomes. Third, research on associations between temporary employmentand the variables job satisfaction, organizational commitment, well-being and behaviour arereviewed. These variables are most frequently used in the realm of temporary work research.This review concludes that research results have been inconsistent and inconclusive, unlikethe predictions that follow from the theoretical frameworks. This leads to a fourth section inwhich potential explanations for these inconsistent findings are advanced. In conclusion, aconceptual model is developed to inspire future research.

Introduction

Researchers have identified the growth intemporary employment, beginning in the 1980sand spanning into the mid-1990s, as one of

the most spectacular and important evolutionsin Western working life. Forecasts indicatethat this trend will continue, although at amore moderate pace (Campbell and Burgess2001a; Guest 2004; Organization for Economic


2/27

2

Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2007

Literature review of temporary employment

Co-operation and Development (OECD) 2002).The growth in temporary employment isdriven mostly by employers demand for moreflexibility and innovation, and by their

wish to reduce labour costs and administrativecomplexity (Brewsteret al.

1997; Burgess andConnell 2006; Kalleberg et al.

2003; Matusikand Hill 1998; Von Hippel et al.

1997; Vosko1998). In spite of speculative debates on thegrowing group of boundaryless workers whoseek financially lucrative temporary jobs(Sullivan 1999), labour force supply factors areunlikely to play a significant role in explainingthe growth in temporary employment arrange-ments (Brewster et al

. 1997; De Grip et al.

1997; Kalleberg et al.

2000).

The observation that the evolution towardsincreased use of temporary employment wasnot initiated or desired by employees hasraised concerns about the impact of temporaryemployment on the individual. This has fuelledpsychological research aimed at comparingtemporary and permanent workers onemployees attitudes, well-being and behaviour.In the following, we review this body ofliterature. The review is based on an extensiveliterature search of published studies, includ-ing studies not published in English, and

unpublished studies reported from 1995 on.Even though the search was aimed at all OECDcountries, the majority of studies come fromthe US, Australia, Canada and, in particular,Europe. As Campbell and Burgess (2001a,b;see also Wooden 2004) note, European studiesdominate research in the realm of temporaryemployment, possibly because they are facilit-ated by data such as the European LabourForce Survey, which are readily availableand accessible.

The paper is organized as follows: we

begin by reviewing the definitions of temporaryemployment that are currently used in OECDcountries. Secondly, we describe theoreticalviews concerning possible determinants. Theproposed determinants are the basis ofhypotheses on potential differences betweentemporary and permanent workers on variouspsychological outcomes. Thirdly, we review

research on associations between temporaryemployment and workers attitudes (jobsatisfaction, organizational commitment),well-being (mental and physical health) and

behaviour (performance). We conclude fromthis review that results are inconsistent andinconclusive. As highlighted in the fourthsection, this signals the need for explanation,as well as for advanced empirical research.We conclude by formulating a conceptualmodel that may inspire future research inthe realm of temporary employment.

Defining Temporary Employment

International studies on the growth of temporary

employment and its possible impact for theindividual have been hampered by the absenceof a universally accepted vocabulary anddefinition (Gallagher and McLean Parks 2001;Kalleberg 2000). With respect to vocabulary,contingent employment is used most pre-valently in US and Canadian literature,while temporary, fixed-term or non-permanentemployment are used interchangeably inEuropean research (Connelly and Gallagher2004; De Cuyper et al

. 2005a). In Australiaand New Zealand, the term casual employment

is perhaps the best available equivalent totemporary employment, even though it is alsodistinct in important respects that will beoutlined below (Burgess et al.

2005; Burgessand Strachan 1999; Campbell 2004; Campbelland Burgess 2001a,b; Junor 2004). For reasonsof consistency, we use temporary employment,

2

except in specific cases where it is importantto highlight the distinct nature of casualemployment in Australia.

With respect to definitions, authors agreethat temporary employment departs from

the standard employment relationship (SER)on three or, in the US, four dimensions (e.g.Burgess and Strachan 1999; Campbell 2004;Cranford et al.

2003; Gallagher and McLeanParks 2001; Gallagher and Sverke 2005;Kalleberg 2000; McLean Parks et al.

1998;Olsen and Kalleberg 2004; Polivka andNardone 1989; Wiens-Tuers and Hill 2002).


3/27


3

December 2007

First, the SER is characterized by permanencyand continuity of employment, whereas thenotion of ongoing employment is absent intemporary employment arrangements. Instead,

temporary employment is of limited durationand often includes a fixed termination date.Second, under the SER, employees work atthe employers workplace and on the employerspremise, under his or her supervision. Incontrast, some temporary employment arrange-ments are market mediated, as in the caseof temporary agency workers. Third, unliketemporary employment in most countries, theSER is associated with extensive statutorybenefits and entitlements such as minimumwage, unemployment insurance, protection

against unfair dismissal and paid leave. Afourth element is specific for the US, namely,the association between the SER and wagedwork. This means that, in the US, self-employment, as in the case of independentcontracting, for example (Connelly andGallagher 2006), falls into the category oftemporary employment. However, researchersof temporary employment, particularly thosein Australia and Europe, have argued for theexclusion of the self-employed (Bernesak andKinnear 1999; Campbell 2004; Guest 2004),

because self-employment is regulated differ-ently by law. Given the vast number of studiesspecifically focused upon self-employedpersons, this is the approach followed in thisreview. This choice is in line with the OECD(2002, 170) definition that temporary employ-ment is dependent employment of limitedduration. Following this definition, the shareof temporary employment is estimated at 15%in Canada and at 4% in the US. The incidenceof temporary employment in Europe variesfrom 4% in Luxembourg up to 35% in Spain,

with the average being about 15%.

3

Theestimations for Australia vary from 4% whenlimited to temporary employment as understoodin Europe and the US (Wooden 2001) to wellover 25% when relying on national statistics(Campbell and Burgess 2001b; Wooden 2004).

Defining temporary employment as depend-ent employment of limited duration may serve

as a first step towards useful internationalcomparisons. However, considerable cautionis warranted, owing to the particularities ofnational regulations, institutional settings

and legislation (Olsen and Kalleberg 2004),as well as to the large heterogeneity of thetemporary workforce (De Cuyperet al

. 2005a).With respect to national regulations andlegislation, two issues stand out. First, com-pared with Australian, Canadian and USregulations, European employment regulationsfor temporary work are quite protective(Vosko 1998; Zeytinoglu and Muteshi 2000).Most European countries have established a mini-mum level of rights that are typically associatedwith permanent employment but have also

been made applicable for temporary workers.The Australian casual workers are perhapsat the other extreme, as they are not entitled topaid annual leave, paid sick leave, paid publicholidays, notice of dismissal or redundancypay (Campbell 1998, 2004). The US countrieshave opted for non-regulation, with employeesprotection, benefits and entitlements beingconditional upon the employers choice. InCanada, there are some directives aimed atimproving the situation of temporary workers.There are considerable difficulties with

their implementation, however, particularlywith respect to workers in tripartite employ-ment relationships (Zeytinoglu and Muteshi2000).

Secondly, specifically in Australia, casualemployment is defined with reference to theabsence of entitlements and benefits and lackof protection (Burgess and Strachan 1999;Campbell 2004; Campbell and Burgess 2001a;Wooden 2001). Not being entitled to sick leaveand paid holiday leave implies the statusof casual worker and this, in turn, defines

ones permanency status.

4

In contrast, reducedaccess to benefits and entitlements and limitedprotection is the consequence of being tem-porarily employed in other OECD countries.Even though this difference has led Wooden(2001) to suggest that casual and temporaryemployment are not comparable in any respect,it could be argued that comparisons may be


4/27

4



useful (Campbell 2004; Campbell and Burgess2001a,b). First, from a theoretical point ofview, both temporary and casual employmenthighlight a labour market divide, which is

particularly large in Australia. Secondly, casualemployment is the most widespread formof non-standard employment in Australia, andthe growth in casual employment is similarto the increase in temporary employment inmany European and US countries. Thirdly,even though casual work is forbidden in mostcountries, it still exists in some forms that aretypically classified as temporary, for example,day labourers and on-call workers. Accordingly,and in line with the international OECDsurvey, we view casual employment as a

particular form of temporary employment,but with its own distinct character.With respect to the large heterogeneity of

the temporary workforce, most authorsdistinguish between workers who are directlyhired by the company and those who areinvolved in a tripartite employment relationship(Cranford et al

. 2003; De Cuyperet al.

2005a;Feldman 2005; Kalleberg 2000). The latter arehired by a third party (the de juro

employer)to perform work at the users firm (the de facto

employer) in times of high demand (e.g.

temporary agency workers) or to providespecific and predominantly specialized servicesthat are outside the core business of the userorganization (e.g. outsourcing) or are not neededon a long-term basis (e.g. subcontracting).Furthermore, temporary employment arrange-ments may differ on various indicators ofemployment stability (OECD 2002). Dailyor on-call contracts are described as extremelyprecarious, owing to their very short contractduration. In contrast, replacement, training andseasonal contracts in many countries are used

to screen potential permanent employees, andthus they may offer the prospect of ongo-ing or long-term employment (Aronsson et al.

2002; Connelly and Gallagher 2004). Thisheterogeneity in type of temporary arrange-ment and its implications for employmentstability and future employment prospects mayfurther complicate theoretical and empirical

research on the psychological impact oftemporary employment.

Determinants of Temporary Workers

Attitudes, Well-being and Behaviour

The majority of studies on the impact oftemporary employment for the individualare either largely atheoretical in nature, or areuncritically grounded in theoretical designsthat have proved valuable in explaining theattitudes, well-being and behaviour of per-manent workers (Connelly and Gallagher 2004),as in the case of studies related to work stress,for example. In addition, some attempts havebeen made to understand temporary workers

responses in terms of psychological processesinvolving the perception of fairness. Theseattempts can be organized under the headingsof Social Comparison Theory and SocialExchange Theory.

Work Stress

Many studies focused on permanent workershave identified a number of possible deter-minants of work strain. In general, these workstressors are exacerbated in temporary employ-

ment arrangements, and hence, they havebeen used to predict unfavourable attitudes,poor well-being and undesirable behavioursamong temporary workers. In particular,three groups of possible stressors have beenidentified. To begin with, theories of labourmarket use, such as the Flexible Firm(Atkinson 1984), Internal Labour MarketTheory (Doeringer and Piore 1971), HumanCapital Theory (Becker 1993) and SegmentationTheory (Amuedo-Dorantes 2000), suggest thattemporary workers are considered peripheral

workers in whom employers are unlikely toinvest in the way typically done to fosterlong-term organizational commitment andloyalty towards the organization (Zeytinogluand Cooke 2005; Zeytinoglu and Mutheshi2001). Lack of these investments may contributeto job strain, which, in turn, may relate topoor well-being (De Witte and Nswall 2003;


5/27


5

December 2007

Zeytinoglu et al.

2004). The associationbetween temporary employment and lowemployers investment in terms of wages (e.g.Bhandari and Hesmati 2006; OECD 2002;

Wooden 2004), fringe benefits (e.g. Kalleberg

et al.

2000; Mangan and Williams 1999; Nollen1996; OECD 2002), promotion (Zeytinoglu

et al

. 2004) and training opportunities (Arons-son et al

. 2002; Connelly and Gallagher 2004;Forrier and Sels 2003; Hoque and Kirkpatrick2003; OECD 2002; Wiens-Tuers and Hill2002) finds overwhelming support.

Secondly, temporary workers are thought tobe vulnerable to job strain owing to poor jobcharacteristics, most notably reduced control,role stress and limited support. In particular,

the Second European Survey on WorkingConditions (Benach et al.

2002; Goudswaardand Andries 2002; Letourneux 1998) showsthat temporary workers experience less auton-omy than permanent workers. Furthermore,their work is often highly monotonous, thusimplying few possibilities for skill utilization(Hall 2006). Temporary workers also appearto have little influence on workplace decisions(Aronsson et al

. 2002; Parker et al.

2002).Other likely stressors are role-related:temporary workers may experience role stress

because they are newcomers in the organizationand not yet acquainted with organizationalprocedures, or because they are assigned littletime and support to understand their roleresponsibilities (McLean Parks et al

. 1998;Sverke et al

. 2000). Finally, temporary workersmay receive little support from their permanentco-workers (Byoung-Hoo and Frenkel 2004)or the union. Temporary workers are lesslikely to join the union, and their rights havetypically not been the main concern of unions(Gallagher and Sverke 2005; Wooden 2004;

Zeytinoglu and Muteshi 2000). This, in turn,may hamper temporary workers attempts toraise voice (Aronescu et al.

2004), especiallyas they may have insufficient expertise aswell as little information on organizationalpractices and procedures to initiate a construc-tive dialogue (Aronsson 1999). The largevolume of studies on the unfavourable effects

of low control, role stress and lack of support,as well as the difficulties in adjusting to thissituation, suggest overall negative psychologicaloutcomes for temporary workers compared

with permanent workers.The third stressor for temporary workershas been termed employment strain and wasdeveloped by Lewchuk et al.

(2005), followingsuggestions by Cooper (2002) and Quinlan

et al. (2001). Employment strain combineshigh demands and low control but, unlike theKaraseks Job Demand Control Model (Karasekand Theorell 1990), is shaped by the employ-ment relationship rather than by the job. Highdemands in this case are associated withthe constant search for new employment, the

effort to keep employment, the need to ensurea positive employer assessment of work per-formance and, for some workers, the effort tobalance demands from multiple job holdingsand multiple employers. These demands con-tribute in predicting poor self-rated health in astudy by Lewchuk et al

. (2005). Low controlreflects increased uncertainty with respectto the terms and conditions of employmentand ones job in the future. Specifically, ashighlighted by other authors, temporaryworkers have little control over the design,

implementation and nature of their work (Beardand Edwards 1995; Krausz 2000; Wheelerand Buckley 2001). For example, comparedwith permanent workers, temporary workers aremore likely to hold physically uncomfortablejobs (Paoli and Merlli 2002; Quinlan et al

.2001; Saloniemi et al.

2004) or jobs whichother organizational members consider leastsatisfying in terms of job content or workschedules (OECD 2002; Sverke et al

. 2000).Furthermore, temporary employment is likelyto generate job insecurity (Beard and Edwards

1995; Bernhard-Oettel et al.

2005; De Witteand Nswall 2003; Felstead and Gallie 2004;Mauno and Kinnunen 2002; Parker et al

.2002; Sverke et al

. 2000; Van Breukelen andAllegro 2000). In a study by Lewchuk et al

.(2005), uncertainty was related to poor self-rated health and tension at work. In the caseof job insecurity, unfavourable results can be


6/27

6



generalized to attitudes, well-being andbehaviour (for a review of studies, see DeWitte 1999, 2005; Sverke et al.

2002).To summarize, various work stressors among

permanent workers have been related to unfa-vourable psychological outcomes. Researchershave drawn on this body of research to predictunfavourable attitudes, poor well-being andundesirable behaviour among temporaryworkers, owing to their increased vulnerabilityto stressors related to the job, as well as totheir specific form of employment.

Social Comparison and SocialExchange Theories

Social Comparison and Social ExchangeTheories hypothesize that employees reactionsare monitored by perceptions of fairness.Using social comparison processes, employeesevaluate how the outcomes they receivecompare with the outcomes received byreferent others (Feldman and Turnley 2004;Thorsteinson 2003). In cases where this evalu-ation leads temporary workers to feel they arenot receiving the outcomes they deserve, andwhere they can see that permanent workersdo, in fact, receive these outcomes, temporary

workers may come to feel a sense of depriva-tion. This may generate more unfavourablepsychological outcomes among temporaryworkers than among permanent workers.

Secondly, Social Exchange Theories highlightthe norm of reciprocity along which outcomesare compared with input. This has often beenformulated in psychological contract terms.Rousseau and Schalk (2000) and others(Chambel and Castanheira in press; Claes

et al

. 2002; Coyle-Shapiro and Kessler 2002;De Cuyper and De Witte 2006, 2007a, in press;

De Cuyper et al.

in press; Guest 2004;Millward and Brewerton 1999, 2000; Millwardand Hopkins 1998; Rousseau 1995; Van Dyneand Ang 1998) argue that the psychologicalcontract of temporary workers compared withpermanent workers is narrower in terms ofnumber and quality of content items. Further-more, the psychological contract of temporary

workers, unlike that of permanent workers,may be asymmetrical, i.e. monitored by theemployer (Beard and Edwards 1995; De Cuyper

et al

. in press). The psychological contract

that is dominant among temporary workers(i.e. narrow and asymmetrical) may preventthe development of a trust relationship with theemployer and, hence, may lead to undesirableemployees attitudes and behaviours: temporaryworkers responses may be contingent upon theirperception of underinvestment, calculatedinvestment (Coyle-Shapiro and Kessler 2002;Koh and Yer 2000) or poor treatment byemployers (Davis-Blake and Uzzi 1993).Related frameworks such as Siegrists Effort-Reward Model have formulated similar

predictions: temporary workers are likely toperceive an imbalance between their effortsand rewards (Isaksson and Bellaagh 2002),which is, moreover, monitored by the employer(Saloniemi et al

. 2004). Temporary workers mayreact to this inequity by developing unfavourableattitudes and by performing poorly.

Temporary vs Permanent WorkersAttitudes, Well-being and Behaviour

In the previous section, we summarized

theoretical views on possible determinantsthat can explain temporary workers attitudes,well-being and behaviour. Specifically, wehighlighted that temporary workers are morevulnerable than permanent workers when itcomes to work and employment strain, andperceptions of unfairness. These variables arewell known to cause unfavourable psychologicalexperiences. In the following, we assess theextent to which the theoretical views aresupported by empirical results on comparisonsbetween temporary and permanent workers

on various psychological outcomes. Europeanstudies dominate these comparisons, possiblybecause of the lack of appropriate datasets inother countries (Campbell and Burgess 2001a,b),but also because unfavourable outcomes amongtemporary and especially casual workers haveoften been taken for granted (Veenstra et al.

2004; Wooden 2004).


7/27


7

December 2007

We grouped psychological outcome variablesalong a two by two dichotomy to guaranteea comprehensive coverage of themes thatdominate psychological literature on the

implications of a changing work life (forfurther discussion, see Sverke et al

. 2002).The first dichotomy distinguishes betweenoutcomes that are affected directly (proximal),such as attitudes, and those that are affectedindirectly (distal), either because they developover time or because they are conditional uponother processes (e.g. mediation by proximalvariables; Chirumbolo and Hellgren 2003;De Cuyper and De Witte 2007a). Effects ondistal outcomes are likely to be somewhatweaker than those on proximal factors. The

second dichotomy distinguishes betweenvariables that have direct consequences for theindividual and possibly indirect consequencesfor the organization, and those variables thatare primarily relevant for the organization. Thelatter may show that temporary employmentis not entirely cost-free for the organization.For each combination, we selected a variablethat was used in a substantial number of studiesin the realm of temporary work research:job satisfaction for the combination proximal-individual, organizational commitment for

the combination proximal-organization, well-being

5

for the combination distal-individual,and productive behaviour for the combinationdistal-organization.

Proximal and Individual: Job Satisfaction

Much research has concerned the relationshipbetween temporary employment and jobsatisfaction. However, results until now havebeen inconclusive. Some studies establishhigher job satisfaction among permanent

workers than among temporary workers(Benavides et al.

2000; Forde and Slater2006; Garca-Montalvo et al.

2003, in Caballer

et al.

2005; Hall 2006; Letourneux 1998;Merlli and Pascal 2002; Paoli and Merlli2002; Rdigeret al.

2003; Zant et al.

2000),while others find the opposite pattern (DeCuyper and De Witte 2005, 2006a, 2007a;

Galup et al.

1997; Mauno et al.

2005; McDonaldand Makin 2000; Werthebach et al.

2000;Wooden 2004). Still others do not find signi-ficant differences (Bernhard 2001; Claes et al

.

2002; Krausz and Bar-Yosef 1999, in Krauszand Stainvartz 2005; Van Breukelen andAllegro 2000). In this respect, it should be notedthat Australian studies do not find lowerjob satisfaction among casual workers thanamong permanent workers, except perhapsin the case of part-time male casual workers(Hall and Harley 2000; Hall et al.

1998;Wooden 2004).

The inconsistencies are exacerbated instudies using multi-country samples orsampling different types of temporary workers.

For example, data from the European House-hold Panel point to higher job satisfactionamong permanent workers, but not in Belgiumand Finland (Kaiser 2002; OECD 2002).Similarly, in their four-country sample, DeWitte and Nswall (2003) find non-significantdifferences between temporary and permanentworkers in Belgium, the Netherlands andSweden, and poorer results for permanentworkers in Italy. Furthermore, temporaryagency workers are least satisfied and fixed-term contract workers are most satisfied with

their job in the study by Guest et al.

(2003).Permanent workers are situated in-between.The British Household Data do not establisha significant effect of contract type, exceptfor lower job satisfaction among casual orseasonal workers (Bardasi and Francesconi2000; Booth et al.

2000).

Proximal and Organization:Organizational Commitment

The relationship between temporary employ-

ment and organizational commitment has alsobeen frequently investigated. It is generallyassumed that short contract duration is nega-tively related to organizational commitment(De Jong and Schalk 2005; Pearce 1993; Rigottiand Mohr 2005; Torka and Van Riemsdijk2001). While this hypothesis finds considerablesupport (Coyle-Shapiro and Kessler 2002;


8/27

8



De Gilder 2003; Eberhardt and Moser 1995;Forde and Slater 2006; Guest et al

. 2003;Krausz and Bar-Yosef 1999, in Krausz andStainvartz 2005; Sverke et al

. 2000; Van Dyne

and Ang 1998), other studies do not findsignificant differences between temporaryand permanent workers (De Witte and Nswall2003, for the Belgian, Italian and Swedishsample; Rdiger et al

. 2003; Tansky et al.

1995; Van Breukelen and Allegro 2000; VanderSteene et al.

2001), or they find lower com-mitment among permanent workers than amongtemporary workers (De Cuyper and De Witte2005, 2006a, 2007a; De Witte and Nswall2003, for the Dutch sample; McDonald andMakin 2000). Furthermore, a Dutch study

by Klein Hesselink et al.

(1998) shows lowercommitment among temporary agency workersthan among both permanent and fixed-termcontract workers.

Some researchers have addressed the issueof dual commitment among temporary agencyworkers; i.e. their commitment towards theagency and towards the user firm. Resultsseem to point to higher levels of commitmenttowards the user firm than towards the agency(Barringer and Sturman 1998; Benson 1998;Van Breugel et al.

2005). Commitment to

the agency is, however, conditional upon thenumber of assignments, as well as upon thetenure length with the agency (Gallagherand Futagami 1998; Gallagher and McLeanParks 2001).

Distal and Individual: Well-being

Until recently, few studies have extensivelyaddressed the long-term consequences oftemporary employment for the individual(Bardasi and Francesconi 2004; Connelly and

Gallagher 2004). Most evidence originatesfrom Scandinavian research. For example,Finnish research has investigated variousaspects of health and well-being in relationto contract type. The findings until now areinconclusive: with respect to issues of generalhealth, temporary workers report better(Liukkonen et al.

2004) or comparable health

compared with permanent workers (Virtanen

et al.

2003b). With respect to mental health,temporary workers indicate better (Liukkonen

et al

. 2004) or poorer (Virtanen et al. 2002)

mental health than permanent workers. Intheir meta-analysis on 27 studies, Virtanenet al. (2005) conclude that the associationbetween temporary employment and variousindicators of well-being is likely to be nega-tive. However, the association varies fromweak to moderate or strong with increasedemployment instability. Quinlan et al. (2001),in their review on the association betweentemporary employment and occupationalhealth and safety, have reached similarconclusions.

The mixed findings are further illustratedin other studies: some studies do not findsignificant differences between permanent andtemporary workers (Artazcoz et al. 2005;Bardasi and Francesconi 2000; Bernhard-Oettel et al. 2005; Claes et al. 2002; De Cuyperand De Witte 2005, 2006a, 2007a; Goudswaardet al. 2000; Houtman et al. 2000; Sverke et al.2000), while others find poorer health amongpermanent workers (Martens et al. 1999;Solano et al. 2002, in Caballeret al. 2005) oramong temporary workers (Benavides et al.

2000; Isaksson et al. 2001; Lasfargues et al.1999; Parker et al. 2002). The inconsistentresults are clearly illustrated when usingsamples from different countries: forexample, Rodriguez (2002) finds no contract-related differences on general health in a UKsample, and poorer health for fixed-termcontract workers in a comparable Germansample.

Distal and Organization: Productive

BehavioursA final set of outcomes concerns productivebehaviours. Again, the pattern of resultsdoes not allow firm conclusions. For example,permanent workers engage in more organiza-tional citizenship behaviours than temporaryworkers in the studies by Coyle-Shapiro andKessler (2002), De Gilder (2003), Guest et al.


9/27

Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2007 9

December 2007

(2003) and Van Dyne and Ang (1998). Engel-landt and Riphahn (2005), however, findthe opposite pattern. Furthermore, the typeof temporary arrangement is found to be an

important factor in the study by Chambel andCastanheira (2006) among Portugese workers:permanent and fixed-term contract workersengage in more organizational citizenshipbehaviour than temporary agency workers do.With respect to performance, Kalleberg (2000)suggests that productivity may be lower fortemporary workers, possibly because they arenew to the job and thus need to learn workprocesses (Nollen and Axel 1996). This issupported in the study by Van Dyne andAng (1998). However, other studies find no

significant differences between temporaryand permanent workers with respect to per-formance (De Cuyper and De Witte 2005;Ellingson et al. 1998). Finally, managersare more satisfied with the performance oftemporary workers than with permanentworkers in the study by Van Breukelen andAllegro (2000).

In sum, our review underlines the conclusionput forward by Connelly and Gallagher (2004)and others (De Cuyper et al. 2005b; Guest2004; Virtanen et al. 2005) that results on

the psychological impact of temporary employ-ment are inconclusive and often contradictory.Even though we selected only four outcomevariables for illustration, we are confidentthat this conclusion will apply to other psycho-logical variables, as well. The inconsistenciesare likely to go beyond differences in nationallegislation and labour market conditions(e.g. Australian studies on job satisfactionamong casual workers; Finnish studies onhealth and well-being), although these factorsdefinitely contribute towards an understanding

of the impact of temporary employment.Furthermore, it could be argued that the mixedfindings reflect the heterogeneity of thetemporary workforce, as a considerable numberof studies have highlighted differencesbetween various forms of temporary employ-ment. This explanation, among others, will bediscussed in detail below.

Explaining the Inconsistent Findings

Speculative attempts to explain the discrepancybetween theory and research and, in particular,

to explain the inconsistent findings withrespect to the impact of temporary employ-ment, have greatly multiplied in recent years.Some researchers have criticized assumptionsunderlying the aforementioned theories onpossible determinants of temporary workersattitudes, well-being and behaviour, whileothers have focused upon shortcomings inresearch designs. As regards the latter, fouravenues have been taken. First, mostresearchers seek to explain the mixed findingsby pointing to the methodological limitations

and drawbacks of earlier studies. Othershave highlighted the huge heterogeneity ofthe temporary workforce. Still others havemoved one step away from discussing methodproblems: they have initiated more complexresearch designs by considering possiblepositive aspects of working temporarily or byintroducing potential moderators. Finally, afourth group of authors have speculated uponthe potential hidden costs associated with per-manent employment, with likely unfavourableoutcomes for permanent workers. In the

following, we first discuss the shortcomingsin theoretical frameworks. Then, we addresseach of the four avenues related to shortcom-ings in research designs.

Shortcomings in Theoretical Frameworks

Even though the ideas advocated in widelyapplied frameworks such as Work StressTheory, Social Comparison Theory or SocialExchange Theory align with conventionalthinking and are popular still today, they

may be criticized for reasons other than notexplaining the mixed findings. To begin with,one aspect of Work Stress Theory assumesthat strain develops from a clear divisionbetween organizational insiders and outsiders,as formulated in theories on labour marketuse. However, these boundaries may, in fact,have faded (Saloniemi et al. 2004) or may not


10/27

10 Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2007


be perceived by employees. In fact, contracttype is not a crucial predictor of perceivedinsider status in the study by Stamper andMasterson (2002). Furthermore, theories on

labour market use fail to notice that a series oftemporary jobs may provide opportunities forthe development of general skills which aretransferable to other organizations, and that itmay, moreover, advance access to professionalnetworks which may lead to stable employ-ment (Gagliarducci 2005). Other studies inthe realm of Work Stress Theory have focusedupon job characteristics, mostly in the traditionof Karaseks Job Demand Control Model(Karasek and Theorell 1990). These studiesreveal lower levels of control among temporary

workers than among permanent workers.However, Parkeret al. (2002), Saloniemi et al.(2004), as well as De Cuyper and De Witte(2006b), establish that temporary employmentis associated with reduced role overload,which may, in turn, reduce possible negativeeffects of low control or autonomy.

Secondly, a critical issue in Social Com-parison Theory concerns the assumption thattemporary workers choose permanent workersperforming similar jobs as referent othersbased on proximity considerations. It could be

argued that temporary workers are likely tocompare themselves with temporary workersin other organizations or departments basedon perceived similarity (De Gilder 2003;Thorsteinson 2003).

Finally, Social Exchange Theory hasattracted criticism for two reasons. First,temporary employment may provide inade-quate opportunity for exchange or reciprocityowing to its short duration (Connelly andGallagher 2004). Temporary workers mayinstead focus upon inducements that could

unfold in the future (Chambel and Castanheira2006). Second, various studies have shownthat the psychological contract of temporaryworkers is less prone to breach or violation bythe employer, possibly because their psycho-logical contract is narrower and, hence, easierto monitor, or because temporary workersmay have greater tolerance for organizational

practices and procedures (Connelly andGallagher 2004; Coyle-Shapiro and Kessler2002; McDonald and Makin 2000; Millwardand Brewerton 2000). It might be that many

temporary workers derive satisfaction fromthe tangible nature of their psychologicalcontract and its limited potential for breach.

Shortcomings in Research Designs

Explanation 1: Limitations of earlier studies.In most explanations, researchers have criti-cized earlier studies on their methodologicaland conceptual soundness. In this vein,Connelly and Gallagher (2004) and Kalleberget al. (2003) suggest that part of the inconsist-

encies across studies may relate to differencesin sampling procedures, most notably withregard to the specific type of temporaryarrangement that was included. Indeed, thisissue reflects concerns about the importance ofconsidering the heterogeneity of the temporaryworkforce, which will be detailed in thesecond explanation below. Others have arguedthat a significant share of temporary workersperform the exact same job as permanentworkers do, especially so when samplingtemporary workers who are hired to replace

permanent workers (Beard and Edwards 1995;Sverke et al. 2000). This may explain the non-significant differences between temporary andpermanent workers in many studies. Further-more, Holtom et al. (2002) see differences inthe psychometric properties of the outcomevariables as problematic when comparingresearch results. Others have highlighted thefailure to control for important backgroundor work-related variables that may mask orinflate differences between temporary andpermanent workers (Bernhard-Oettel et al.

2005; Holtom et al. 2002; Rigotti and Mohr2005; Van Breukelen and Allegro 2000).Finally, most studies could not control forpossible selection effects, which may bias theresults. Virtanen et al. (2005) suggest thatthere could be a positive health selection intotemporary employment: healthy members ofthe labour market reserve are more likely to


11/27


December 2007

seek employment than are unhealthy members.Similarly, employers are likely to systematicallychoose the healthiest among the availableworkforce. Furthermore, the healthy worker

effect may fade out over time or with exposureto work-related stressors. This may eventuallylead to poorer health, especially amongpermanent workers. In contrast, Galais (2003)provides evidence in her longitudinal studyfor negative health selection into temporaryemployment: agency workers who reportsomatic complaints are less likely to gainpermanent employment. Similarly, Virtanenet al. (2002, 2003a) finds that good rather thanpoor health and job satisfaction predicttransition to permanent employment. Similarly,

it is plausible that employers will tend toselect workers who report favourable attitudestowards the organization when hiring forpermanent employment.

Taking a conceptual stance, Gallagher andcolleagues (Connelly and Gallagher 2004;Gallagher and McLean Parks 2001; Gallagherand Sverke 2005) have formulated concernsabout the relevance of well-establishedconstructs and theories for research on tem-porary employment. For example, conventionaldefinitions of organizational commitment

are grounded in the traditional permanentemployeeemployer relationship, i.e. anemployment relationship in which satisfactoryperformance is rewarded by ongoing employ-ment (De Gilder 2003). Many of the traditionalantecedents of organizational commitmentmay not apply in the case of temporary workers,particularly not in the case of temporary agencyworkers: their commitment may concern theuser organization, the intermediary organizationor both, and the various foci of commitmentmay be nested within each other (Barringer

and Sturman 1998; Gallagher and Sverke 2005;Feldman et al. 1994). Other authors havehighlighted still other foci of commitment,such as commitment to the job or the profession,which might be particularly important fornon-standard workers and, more specifically,for temporary workers (Felfe et al. 2005). Inmuch the same way, job dissatisfaction and

job insecurity may be less predictive for turn-over among temporary workers, although it isconsidered central to all turnover theories.In the case of temporary workers, turnover is

expected and agreed upon (Aronescu et al.2004; Guest and Clinton 2005; Isaksson andBellaagh 2002). Furthermore, temporary andpermanent workers may differ in their inter-pretation of what constitutes organizationalcitizenship behaviour. Specifically, permanentworkers may consider some organizationalcitizenship behaviours as part of their job,and they may perform these behaviours out ofprofessionalism. In contrast, temporary workersmay have a fairly liberal interpretation ofout-role behaviours (Connelly and Gallagher

2004), and they might be more likely toengage in organizational citizenship behaviourto reciprocate fair treatment by employers(Coyle-Shapiro and Kessler 2002; Coyle-Shapiro et al. 2004; Van Dyne and Ang 1998).

Explanation 2: The heterogeneity of tempo-rary workers. Many authors argue that theheterogeneity of the temporary workforcemay account for the mixed findings discussedearlier. Various authors have highlightedhuge differences between specific types of

temporary arrangements, most notably withregard to employment stability (Virtanen et al.2003b), and with regard to background variablessuch as age, gender, education and tenurebetween workers occupying similar positions(Cohany 1998; DiNatale 2001; Wooden 2004).Specifically, directly hired, fixed-term contractworkers are assumed to be most similar topermanent workers, while temporary agencyworkers and, in particular, casual and on-callworkers may occupy the most peripheralpositions (Aronsson et al. 2002; Bernhard-

Oettel et al. 2005; Chambel and Castanheira2006). This coincides with the findings reportedearlier on the lower levels of job satisfactionamong agency workers (Guest et al. 2003)and on-call workers (Bardasi and Francesconi2000; Booth et al. 2000).

A critical issue, however, concerns thedefinition and measurement of employment


12/27



stability in these studies: the same label usedfor a specific category of temporary employment(e.g. agency work) may have different meaningsin different countries. This may hamper cross-

national comparisons. For example, agencyworkers have temporary contracts with theagency in some countries, and they havepermanent contracts with the agency inothers. Instead, characteristics such as contractduration or time left before the contract expiresmay more objectively define employmentstability. In this respect, Feldman (2005)suggests that longer contract duration mayrelate to increased responsibility, interestingwork, social support from colleagues andlower job insecurity. Contract duration may

furthermore monitor access to HR practicessuch as training, and to benefits and privileges(OECD 2002), and it may reduce risks ofbecoming trapped in a cycle of unstable,low paid jobs and spells of unemployment(Hancock 1999; Scherer 2004; Wooden 2004).These factors, in turn, may predict variouspsychological outcomes. For example,Engellandt and Riphahn (2005) find thatlong-term temporary workers are morelikely to put in extra effort as compared withthose on short-term contracts. Surprisingly

few studies have investigated the impact oftime left before the contract expires, eventhough this may well relate to issues ofjob insecurity.

Other authors have explored the heterogeneityof temporary workers in factors related tochoice and preferences. In particular, volitionor contract preference has been suggested tobe the most important dimension in describ-ing the heterogeneity of temporary workers(Connelly and Gallagher 2004; Isaksson andBellaagh 2002). This idea dates back to the

early 1970s with the work of Gannon (1971,1974, 1984), and it has regained interest in therealm of part-time work research (Krausz et al.2000; Morrow et al. 1994). Favourable out-comes are expected among those preferringtemporary to permanent employment voluntary temporary workers compared withthose who do not prefer it involuntary

temporary workers. First, volition may expressperceived control, for which favourable effectsare well documented, both theoretically inSelf Determination Theory (Deci and Ryan

1987) and empirically (Beard and Edwards1995). Second, the personjob fit is much betterfor voluntary temporary workers (Holtom et al.2002), and these workers may be more sensi-tive to positive aspects of working temporarily(Feldman et al. 1994). In contrast, involuntarytemporary workers may have little incentivefor performing beyond the minimum jobrequirements (Moorman and Harland 2002).Empirical findings have provided moderatesupport. Voluntary compared with involuntarytemporary workers are more satisfied with their

job (Barringer and Sturman 1998; Ellingsonet al. 1998; Krausz et al. 1995) and morecommitted to the organization (Von Hippelet al. 1997). Furthermore, volition is associatedwith fewer somatic complaints (Isaksson andBellaagh 2002).

More recently, researchers have raised con-cerns about the relevance of this explanationin labour markets where choice is limited(De Cuyper and De Witte 2007b; Guest 2004;Parkeret al. 2002; Saloniemi et al. 2004; VanDyne and Ang 1998). Various studies signal

that most temporary workers are forced intotemporary employment: European (Amuedo-Dorantes 2000; Isaksson and Bellaagh 2002;Tremlett and Collins 1999) and US (Barringerand Sturman 1998; Morris and Vekker 2001;Polivka 1996; Von Hippel et al. 1997) reportsestimate the share of voluntary temporaryworkers at 30% at best. These numbers maybe somewhat higher among Australian casualworkers (Wooden 2004), possibly becausecasual workers are sometimes granted higherpay in exchange for a lack of benefits (cashing

out; Campbell 2004). Furthermore, a criticalissue in volition research is the lack of controlgroups, namely a comparison of voluntary andinvoluntary temporary workers to permanentworkers (De Cuyper and De Witte 2007b; foran exception, see Krausz et al. 1995). This is,however, crucial in establishing firm evidenceon the importance of volition in explaining


13/27


December 2007

potential differences between temporary andpermanent workers.

Others have argued that motives for acceptingtemporary employment may more accurately

capture issues concerning choice: involuntarystatus does not imply that the decision toaccept temporary employment is outside theemployees control and vice versa for voluntarystatus (De Jong et al. 2005; Ellingson et al.1998; Marler et al. 2002; Polivka 1996; Tanand Tan 2002). For example, it might be thatemployees non-work responsibilities causethem to accept temporary employment.Neither does voluntary status relate to overallfavourable outcomes, and involuntary status tooverall unfavourable outcomes. For example,

voluntary temporary workers may want todistance themselves from the control of theemployer (Aronescu et al. 2004). Similarly, ithas been argued that involuntary workers arehighly motivated to gain permanent employ-ment, and that this motivation monitorshigh levels of performance and cooperation(De Cuyper and De Witte 2006c; Moormanand Harland 2002; Van Dyne and Ang 1998;Von Hippel et al. 1997). Aronsson and Gransson(1999) also add issues related to occupation ofchoice and workplace of choice as reasons

for accepting a temporary assignment: work-ing in a desired occupation or in a workplacewith good career opportunities may be moreimportant than degree of contract security.Research including motives is, however,limited, and until now, exploratory.

Explanation 3: More complex research designs.A third avenue in explaining the inconsistentfindings on the psychological impact oftemporary employment has been to initiatemore complex research designs. Specifically,

researchers have reflected upon possiblepositive aspects of temporary employment orthey have introduced possible moderators.

To begin with, possible favourable featuresof temporary employment are not consideredin most studies, although they may balance orbuffer negative aspects (De Cuyper and DeWitte 2006a; Hoque and Kirkpatrick 2003):

temporary workers may have a better worklife balance (Polivka 1996); they may benefitfrom scheduling flexibility, skill training andmaintenance; and they may enjoy the variety

of experiences (Hardy and Walker 2003;Kalleberg 2000; Krausz et al. 1995). Someauthors moreover question whether so-calledunfavourable aspects of temporary employmentare perceived as such by employees. Theyargue that risks may be formulated as oppor-tunities and vice versa (Garsten 1999; Kundaet al. 2002). For example, the feeling of beingat the organizations periphery could be framedas the freedom of not engaging too intensivelyor as a way of not getting involved in organiza-tional problems and politics. This line of

research is promising in terms of explainingthe inconsistent results, but it has not beensufficiently explored to date.

Secondly, it could be argued that theresponses of temporary workers are contingentupon aspects that are less predictive forpermanent workers responses and vice versa.This may hold for issues concerning motiva-tion or for specific work stressors. For example,the stepping stone or foot-in-the-door hypo-thesis suggests that many temporary workersare strongly motivated to secure permanent

employment, and that they may want to signaltheir potential value as permanent workers tothe organization by providing high levels ofeffort and by showing constructive behaviour(Connelly and Gallagher 2004; De Cuyperand De Witte 2006c; Feather and Rauter2004; Mauno et al. 2005). Furthermore,temporary workers may be reluctant to reportpoor health, as this may lower their chancesof permanent employment (Liukkonen et al.2004; Virtanen et al. 2002), especially intimes of high competition for jobs (Virtanen

et al. 2005). Alternatively, temporary workersresponses may anticipate the desired outcomeof permanent employment. In this respect,research on anticipatory socialization hasestablished that observance and commitmentto the norms is often higher among thoseoutside the high prestige group but wishing tojoin in than among core members (McDonald


14/27



and Makin 2000; Von Hippel 2006). Eventhough research on the stepping stone hypo-thesis is scarce, results reported by Goudswaardet al. (2000) provide supporting evidence:

temporary workers perceiving their chance ofa permanent contract or renewed contract ashigh compared with low report higher levelsof job satisfaction, and are less often absentbecause of sickness.

Recent studies have also demonstratedthat job insecurity may have different effectsfor permanent and temporary workers. Morespecifically, job insecurity reduces job satis-faction and organizational commitment amongpermanent workers, whereas it does little inexplaining the responses of temporary workers

(De Cuyper and De Witte 2005, 2006a, 2007a;De Witte and Nswall 2003; Mauno et al.2005). Similarly, the interaction term betweencontract type and job insecurity adds inexplaining psychological distress, health(Bernhard-Oettel et al. 2005; Sverke et al. 2000;Virtanen et al. 2002) and turnover intention(De Cuyper and De Witte 2005): permanentworkers experience higher distress and poorerhealth, and are more inclined to quit thecompany when feeling insecure than aretemporary workers, for whom job insecurity is

not predictive of these outcomes. This patternof results is explained mostly by referring todifferences in expectations: Klein Hesselinkand Van Vuuren (1999), for example, arguethat the discrepancy between the level ofexpected and perceived job insecurity is moredramatic for permanent than for temporaryworkers, and this, in turn, may account for theresults. This suggests that job insecurity isproblematic only if it represents an unwelcomeorganizational change (Pearce 1998) or abetrayal of the psychological contract (De Witte

and Nswall 2003; Mauno et al. 2005), bothof which reflect a violation of employeesexpectations. Evidence for this hypothesiswas reported by De Cuyper and De Witte(2006a, 2007a). Others have argued thatpermanent workers have more to lose and,hence, their reactions may be stronger(Klein Hesselink and Van Vuuren 1999). Pearce

(1998), however, questions this explanation:she argues that loss of work may be costly,and that it may imply financial difficulties,especially for temporary workers, who often

find it difficult to find alternative employment.Finally, it is possible that employabilityrepresents an alternative to job security fortemporary workers, implying that low employ-ability rather than job insecurity might beproblematic for temporary workers (De Cuyperand De Witte in press; Forrier and Sels 2003).

Explanation 4: Hidden costs for permanentworkers. Some researchers have soughtexplanations for the mixed findings reportedearlier by considering potential stressors or

hidden costs for permanent workers. Aronssonand Gransson (1999), for example, argue thatissues related to continuance commitment,such as seniority principles and the attractionof permanent employment, may compel per-manent workers to stay in a position that doesnot match their preferences or aspirations.This, in turn, may negatively affect theirattitudes, health and behaviours.

US researchers in particular have arguedthat extensive use of temporary workers may,in fact, unintentionally affect the working

conditions of permanent workers (Broschakand Davis-Blake 2006; Davis-Blake et al. 2003;Liukkonen et al. 2004; Wright and Lund 1996).More specifically, using temporary workersmay increase the level of responsibilityand the supervision demands for permanentworkers, without simultaneously increasingtheir rewards. This may then increase percep-tions of workload among permanent workers(Pearce 1993). It is also possible that temporaryworkers are hired when permanent workersare already overworked. Hiring temporary

workers may also change the nature of tasksthat are assigned to permanent workers (Angand Slaughter 2001; Pearce 1993). Supervisorstypically delegate less complex tasks andtasks low in interdependence to temporaryworkers, implying that tasks high in bothcognitive and social demands are shifted topermanent workers (Connelly and Gallagher


15/27


December 2007

2004; Davis-Blake and Uzzi 1993). Permanentworkers may be worrying about implicationsfor developmental and internal mobility oppor-tunities (Geary 1992; Kalleberg 2000). They

may feel that the pool of potential rivals hasincreased, especially for those at the lowerend of the organizational hierarchy (Broschakand Davis-Blake 2006). Finally, in organiza-tions with many temporary workers, permanentworkers may feel they are easily replaceable,which may increase their perceptions of jobinsecurity (Campbell 1998; Davis Blake et al.2003). In turn, permanent workers may feelthat they cannot trust their organization, orthat their psychological contract has beenviolated. They may then respond with lower

commitment towards the organization and withunproductive performance (Ang and Slaughter2001; George 2003; Pearce 1993).

These effects are likely to be conditionalupon the proportion of temporary workersand upon permanent workers assumptionsconcerning the reasons for hiring temporaryworkers. For example, Chattopadhyay andGeorge (2001) observe negative effects onlyfor permanent workers working in groupsdominated by temporary workers. Broschakand Davis-Blake (2006) have also demonstrated

a relationship between the degree of hetero-geneity in employment arrangements in awork group and turnover intention, as wellas a relationship between heterogeneity inemployment relationships and poor relationswith supervisors and colleagues. The authorsargue that permanent workers may feel thattheir high prestige status and positive socialidentity is threatened by the dominance oftemporary workers. In contrast, the numberof temporary vs permanent workers does notaffect temporary workers under any condition,

possibly because they are used to coping withsituations in which they are the minority orbecause they already anticipate this situation.Alternatively, they may derive prestige and,hence, favourable attitudes, by working along-side permanent workers (Chattopadhyay andGeorge 2001; Von Hippel 2006). Kraimeret al.(2005) go on to suggest that the costs of hiring

temporary workers are moderated by theorganizations motives for doing so: whenpermanent workers trust that the organizationdoes not threaten their interests but, instead,

that the organization relies on temporaryworkers to meet business demands, negativeeffects are unlikely. In contrast, when per-manent workers interpret the presence oftemporary workers as managements intentionsto change internal structures or to identifyqualified job candidates, they may respondunfavourably. In their study, Kraimer et al.(2005) reveal that permanent workers withlow levels of job security are less likely totrust the organizations motives for hiringtemporary workers and feel less obligated to

perform well. Those with high levels of jobsecurity, in contrast, are likely to evaluate theorganizations intention positively and aremotivated to reciprocate by performing well.The Kraimer et al. (2005) interpretation mayalso explain the research findings reported byDavis-Blake et al. (2003), where the negativeeffects of hiring temporary workers are foundto be weaker among permanent workers withhigh wages or among those workers who havesupervision demands.

Conclusion: A Conceptual Model forFuture Research

This review has highlighted the complexityof research on the psychological impact oftemporary employment. More specifically, ithas emphasized the lack of theoretical foundingin many studies, or has questioned the validityof widely applied theoretical considerations.For example, the prediction of more unfavour-able outcomes among temporary workersthan among permanent workers is based on

a presumed increase in vulnerability for joband employment strain, which may thenhave harmful implications in terms of socialexchange and social comparison. However, ourreview of empirical research on the relationshipbetween temporary employment and jobsatisfaction, organizational commitment, well-being and productive behaviours highlights


16/27



the fact that findings are inconsistent andinconclusive. This fact has inspired researchersto implement more sophisticated researchdesigns, which have been integrated into our

conceptual model as shown in Figure 1.

6

Thesections below highlight each of these issues.

Control Variables

Researchers have identified various variablesthat should be controlled for in all analysesaimed at comparing temporary and permanentworkers. There may be many potential controlvariables, including work-related variables (e.g.occupational status, weekly working hours)and individual background variables (e.g. age,

gender, education). In addition, there may becontext-related factors (e.g. employment sector,country) that should be controlled for, or,when informative for the specific researchquestion, that should be introduced in a multi-level research design. A systematic account ofcontrol variables may also at least partiallycounter effects of sampling strategies.

The Independent Variable:Heterogeneity of Temporary Workers

Temporary workers are not a homogeneousgroup and, hence, should not be treated assuch in empirical designs. A possible, objectiveindicator of the heterogeneity of temporaryworkers is the specific type of temporaryarrangement. Research studies, especially thoseaimed at making international comparisons,may, however, benefit from a detailedspecification of contract types along dimen-sions reflecting employment stability, suchas the number of parties involved, contractduration, time left before the contract expires,

unemployment experiences or future employ-ment prospects. This may be a good responseto the difficulties concerning inconsistentvocabulary and definitions across countries.The heterogeneity of temporary workers hasalso been addressed along subjective dimen-sions, most notably volition: temporary workerspreferring their arrangement are expected to

report more favourable attitudes than thosewho do not. Possibly, motives for acceptingtemporary employment, including motivesrelated to preferences for a specific occupation

or workplace, may also play an importantrole. They may give a more detailed accountof how voluntary status is interpreted, as well.For example, some temporary workers mayinterpret voluntary status as an ideal: theymay be involuntarily employed when acceptingtemporary employment for non-work relatedreasons. Others may reflect on a realisticsituation: they may perceive temporary employ-ment as the best option at that very moment,even when they are forced into temporaryemployment because of non-work related

reasons. A detailed specification of how theheterogeneity of the temporary workforce mayaffect research results should be part ofall analyses on temporary employment. Theseanalyses may include specifications on howthe heterogeneity is related to employeesdemographics, and how heterogeneity indicatorsand demographics may interact in predictingemployees responses. For example, it couldbe that females are more likely than males tohighlight voluntary motives related to otherthan work obligations (Casey and Alach 2004),

which may affect responses on psychologicaloutcomes.

Outcome Variables: Validityand Interpretation

Researchers have formulated both methodo-logical and conceptual concerns with regardto various traditional psychological outcomes.The psychometric properties of the constructsmay be different for temporary and permanentworkers. This urges researchers to carefully

document the measurements used, for bothtemporary and permanent workers. A relatedissue concerns potential differences ininterpretation of well-established constructsand their theoretical foundation. This has beendocumented for theories on organizationalcommitment, and to a lesser extent for con-structs such as turnover intention, organizational


17/27

BlackwellPublishingLtd2007

17

Figure 1. A conceptual model.


18/27



citizenship behaviour and other similarconstructs.

Positive Aspects of Working Temporarily

and Negative Aspects of WorkingPermanently

Recently, researchers have introduced inter-vening variables that may balance or buffernegative aspects that are associated withtemporary employment. More specifically,they have reflected upon the possible benefitsof temporary employment. For example,reduced workload among temporary workersmay buffer the potential negative effects oflow autonomy. Similarly, the psychological

contract of temporary workers is less prone tobreach, which may balance possible negativeeffects of its narrower content. Other positiveaspects are work-life balance and variety ofexperiences, among others. These should beconsidered in addition to, and possibly ininteraction with, negative aspects of temporaryemployment.

In much the same way, there may be hiddencosts for permanent workers: permanentworkers may feel locked into their jobs morethan temporary workers do, because they

may fear the costs associated with leaving.Furthermore, permanent workers may perceiveincreased supervision demands and reducedpromotion opportunities and job securitywhen temporary workers are hired. The effectsare conditional upon factors such as theproportion of temporary workers, the reasonsfor hiring temporary workers, and their positionin the organization. Future research may wantto develop this line of research by completingthe list of potential benefits and drawbacksfor both temporary and permanent workers.

Moderators: Motivation and Expectation

Few researchers have investigated possiblemoderators of the relationship between tem-porary employment and outcomes. Some haveemphasized that temporary workers motivationto gain permanent employment may be highly

predictive for psychological outcomes, probablyeven more predictive than permanent workerswork motivation. Temporary workers mayperceive foot-in-the-door opportunities, which

they exploit by signalling excellent citizenshipattitudes and behaviour even under non-optimalworking conditions. This issue is relatedthough clearly distinct from motives foraccepting temporary employment: while motivesfor accepting temporary employment underlinethe huge heterogeneity of temporary workers,motivation issues are relevant for both tem-porary workers and permanent workers.

Temporary workers may also have learnedto adjust their expectations downward or maycompare their situation to previous unem-

ployment experiences, which may lead to afavourable evaluation of temporary employment.This was illustrated by research on jobinsecurity: while job insecurity was harmfulfor permanent workers, it did not affect tem-porary workers responses. It is possible that jobsecurity is simply not part of the expectationsheld by temporary workers, although it iscrucial to permanent workers. To the extentthat temporary workers value employabilityas the new security mechanism on the labourmarket, it might be that temporary workers

reactions are monitored by employabilityconsiderations.

Methodological Issues

An important methodological drawback ofcontemporary research on the psychologicalimpact of temporary employment concerns thelack of longitudinal designs (for an exception,see Galais 2003; Parkeret al. 2002; Virtanen2003; Virtanen et al. 2005). These may, how-ever, provide a long-term perspective on the

impact of temporary employment. It may beparticularly interesting to investigate mobilitypatterns of temporary workers, the role ofmotives for accepting temporary employment,and the stepping stone function of temporaryemployment. It may also provide a bettercheck for possible selection effects: until now,the extent to which and the way the healthy


19/27


December 2007

worker effect adds to the mixed findings onthe psychological impact of temporary employ-ment is unclear. It could be that temporaryworkers get trapped into a cycle of unstable

jobs owing to, for example, poor health(Chambel and Castanheira 2006). Alternatively,there could be positive health selection intopermanent employment (Virtanen et al. 2005).We realize, however, that the high turnoveramong temporary workers and their hugevariation in contract duration may hampera follow-up design. In this respect, the designadvanced by Gash et al. (2006) may beparticularly useful. These authors investigatehealth changes when transitioning from unem-ployment to employment. Follow-up in such

designs may be somewhat easier. The authorsfind health improvements for both temporaryand permanent workers. However, the gainswere considerably greater among permanentworkers.

Concluding Remarks

We have reviewed theory and research on thepsychological impact of temporary employment.An important observation was that Europeanstudies dominate research in the realm of

temporary employment. This is somewhatsurprising, given the high numbers of temporaryor casual workers in other OECD and non-OECD countries. Furthermore, it appears thatthe research results on the effects of temporaryemployment for the individual are inconclusive,and that widely applied theoretical frame-works on possible determinants of employeesattitudes, well-being and behaviour cannotaccount for this. Many researchers havepointed to problems related to the definitionof temporary employment and the huge heter-

ogeneity of temporary employment in manyaspects. They have also identified a range ofvariables that should be controlled for. Whilethese issues are of crucial importance, we feelthat more elaborated theoretical considerationsare necessary to advance this line of research.

In particular, both favourable and unfavour-able aspects of temporary employment, as

well as the motivations and the expectationsof temporary workers, should be taken intoaccount. Furthermore, potential hidden stressorsrelated to permanent employment may be

equally important for understanding thecomplex pattern of results. Finally, researchersmay consider adding mediators and/ormoderators to their design. Overall, this reviewinvites researchers to explore our conceptualmodel further, and to provide empiricalevidence for explanations that have remainedlargely speculative.

Notes

1 Address for correspondence: Nele De Cuyper,

Research Group for Work, Organization andPersonnel Psychology, K.U Leuven, Tiensestraat102, 3000 Leuven, Belgium; Tel: +32 16 32 6014; e-mail: [email protected]

2 Contingent employment is often understood asreferring to all non-standard employment relation-ships, including part-time employment or tele-commuting. To avoid confusion, we decided to usetemporary employment.

3 www.oecd.org4 Some Australian authors distinguish between

regular, long-term, permanent or ongoing casualworkers and short-term or true casuals based on

the duration of employment (e.g. Campbell 2004).However, casual employees in both cases are notentitled to a period of notice before dismissal anddo not have an implicit or explicit contract forlong-term employment, both of which are aspectscommonly associated with temporary employment(e.g. McLean Parks et al. 1998).

5 We did not distinguish between psychological ormental and physical well-being, as this distinctionwas blurred in some studies.

6 This model builds on the model formulated byDe Cuyperet al. (2005b).

References

Amuedo-Dorantes, C. (2000). Work transitions intoand out of involuntary temporary employment in asegmented market: evidence from Spain.Industrialand Labor Relations Review, 53(2), 309325.

Ang, S. and Slaughter, S.A. (2001). Work outcomesand job design for contract versus permanentinformation systems professionals on software
http://www.oecd.org/http://www.oecd.org/


20/27



development teams. MIS Quarterly, 25(3), 321350.

Aronescu, D., Larsson, P., Bergstrm, O. andStrannegard, L. (2004). The voice of temporarydoctors: contingent employment as an act of resist-

ance. Paper presented at EGOS 20th Colloquium:the Organization as a Set of Dynamic Relationships,Ljubljana, Slovenia, 13 July.

Aronsson, G. (1999). Contingent workers and healthand safety. Work, Employment and Society, 13,439459.

Aronsson, G. and Gransson, S. (1999). Permanentemployment but not in a preferred occupation:psychological and medical aspects, researchimplications. Journal of Occupational Health

Psychology, 4(2), 152163.Aronsson, G., Gustafsson, K. and Dallner, M. (2002).

Work environment and health in different types of

temporary jobs. European Journal of Work andOrganizational Psychology, 11(2), 151175.

Artazcoz, L., Benach, J., Borrell, C. and Cortz, I.(2005). Social inequalities in the impact of flexibleemployment on different domains of psychosocialhealth. Journal of Epidemiological Community

Health, 59, 761767.Atkinson, J. (1984). Manpower strategies for flexible

organizations. Personnel Management, August,2831.

Bardasi, E. and Francesconi, M. (2000). The effectof non-standard employment on mental health inBritain. IZA Discussion paper 232, Bonn, Germany.

Bardasi, E. and Francesconi, M. (2004). The impactof atypical employment on individual well-being:evidence from a panel of British workers. SocialScience and Medicine, 58, 16711688.

Barringer, M.W. and Sturman, M.C. (1998). Theeffects of variable work arrangements on the organiza-tional commitment of contingent workers. Workingpaper, Cornell University, USA.

Beard, K.M. and Edwards, J.R. (1995). Employees atrisk: contingent work and the psychologicalexperience of contingent workers. In Cooper, C.I.and Rousseau, D.M. (eds), Trends in Organizational

Behavior, Vol. 2. Chichester: John Wiley, pp. 109126.

Becker, G.S. (1993). Human Capital: A Theoreticaland Empirical Analysis With Special Reference to

Education. Chicago: National Bureau of EconomicResearch, University of Chicago Press.

Benach, J., Gimeno, D. and Benavides, F.G. (2002).Types of Employment and Health in the European

Union. European Foundation for the Improvement

of Living and Working Conditions. Office forOfficial Publications in the European Community.Luxembourg.

Benavides, F.G., Benach, J., Diez-Roux, A.V. andRoman, C. (2000). How do types of employment

relate to health indicators? Findings from theSecond European Survey on Working Conditions.

Journal of Epidemiological Community Health, 54,494501.

Benson, J. (1998). Dual commitment: contract workersin Australian manufacturing enterprises.Journal of

Management Studies, 35, 355375.Bernesak, A. and Kinnear, D. (1999). Workers

willingness to accept contingent employment.Journal of Economic Issues, 33, 461469.

Bernhard, C. (2001). Employment conditions, jobcharacteristics and psychological contracts oftemporary workers: the development of a com-

prehensive frame to study temporary employmentforms and their consequences. Unpublished diplomathesis, TU Dresden, Germany.

Bernhard-Oettel, C., Sverke, M. and De Witte, H.(2005). Comparing three alternative types ofemployment with permanent full-time work:how do employment contract and perceived jobconditions relate to health complaints? Work andStress, 19, 301318.

Bhandari, A.K. and Heshmati, A. (2006). Wageinequality and job insecurity among permanentand contract workers in India: evidence fromorganized manufacturing industries. Discussion

paper 2097.Booth, A., Francesconi, M. and Frank, J. (2000).

Temporary workers: new evidence on their pay,conditions and prospects. Future of Work Bulletin,1, 24.

Brewster, C., Mayne, L. and Tregaskis, O. (1997).Flexible working in Europe. Journal of World

Business, 32(2), 133151.Broschak, J.P. and Davis-Blake, A. (2006). Mixing

standard work and nonstandard deals: the con-sequences of heterogeneity in employmentarrangements. Academy of Management Journal,49, 371393.

Burgess, J. and Connell, J. (2006). Temporary workand human resource management: issues, challengesand responses.Personnel Review, 35(2), 129140.

Burgess, J. and Strachan, G. (1999). The expansion ofnon-standard employment in Australia and theextension of employers control. In Felstead, A.and Jewson, N. (eds), Trends in Flexible Labour.London: Macmillan Business, pp. 121140.


21/27


December 2007

Burgess, J., Connell, J. and Rasmussen, E. (2005).Temporary agency work and precarious employment:a review of the current situation in Australiaand New Zealand. Management Revue, 16, 351369.

Byoung-Hoo, L. and Frenkel, S.J. (2004). Dividedworkers: social relations between contract andregular workers in a Korean auto company. Work,

Employment and Society, 18, 507530.Caballer, A., Silla, I., Gracia, F. and Ramos, J. (2005).

Current evidence concerning employment contractsand employee/organizational well-being amongworkers in Spain. In De Cuyper, N., Isaksson, K.and De Witte, H. (eds), Employment Contracts andWell-Being Among European Workers. Aldershot:Ashgate, pp. 155175.

Campbell, I. (1998). The nature and dimensions ofprecarious employment in Australia. Labour and

Industry, January.Campbell, I. (2004). Casual work and casualisation:

how does Australia compare?Labour and Industry,December.

Campbell, I. and Burgess, J. (2001a). Casual employ-ment in Australia and temporary employment inEurope: developing a cross-national comparison.Work, Employment and Society, 15, 171184.

Campbell, I. and Burgess, J. (2001b). Temporary andcasual: a rejoinder to Wooden. Work, Employmentand Society, 15, 885887.

Casey, C. and Alach, P. (2004). Just a temp? Women,temporary employment and lifestyle. Work, Employ-ment and Society, 18, 459480.

Chambel, M.J. and Castanheira, F. (in press). Theydont want to be temporary workers: similaritiesbetween temps and core workers. Journal ofOrganizational Behavior.

Chambel, M.J. and Castanheira, F. (2006). Differenttemporary work status, different behaviors inorganization.Journal of Business and Psychology,20, 351367.

Chattopadhyay, P. and George, E. (2001). Examiningthe effects of work externalization through thelens of social identity theory. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 86, 781788.Chirumbolo, A. and Hellgren, J. (2003). Individual

and organizational consequences of job insecurity:a European study. Economic and Industrial

Democracy, 24, 217240.Claes, R., De Witte, H., Schalk, R., Guest, D.,

Isaksson, K., Krausz, M., Mohr, G. and Peir, J.M.(2002). Het psychologisch contract van vaste entijdelijke werknemers [The psychological contract

of permanent and temporary workers]. Gedrag enOrganisatie, 15(6), 436455.

Cohany, S.R. (1998). Workers in alternative employmentarrangements. A second look. Monthly Labor

Review, 121, 321.

Connelly, C.E. and Gallagher, D.G. (2004). Emergingtrends in contingent work research. Journal of

Management, 30, 959983.Connelly, C.E. and Gallagher, D.G. (2006). Inde-

pendent and dependent contracting: meaning andimplications.Human Resource Management Review,16, 95106.

Cooper, C.L. (2002). The changing psychologicalcontract at work. Occupational and Environmental

Medicine, 59, 355.Coyle-Shapiro, J.A.M. and Kessler, I. (2002).

Contingent and non-contingent working in localgovernment: contrasting psychological contracts.

Public Administration, 80(1), 77101.Coyle-Shapiro, J.A.M., Kessler, I. and Purcell, J.

(2004). Exploring organizationally directed citizen-ship behaviour: reciprocity or its my job?Journalof Management Studies, 41, 85106.

Cranford, C.J., Vosko, L.F. and Zukewich, N. (2003).The gender of precarious employment in Canada.

Industrial Relations, 58, 454482.Davis-Blake, A. and Uzzi, B. (1993). Determinants of

employment externalization: a study of temporaryworkers and independent contractors.AdministrativeScience Quarterly, 38(2), 195223.

Davis-Blake, A., Broschak, J.P. and George, E.

(2003). Happy together? How using non-standardworkers affects exit, voice, and loyalty amongstandard employees. Academy of Management

Journal, 46, 475485.Deci, E. and Ryan, R. (1987). The support of autonomy

and the control of behavior. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 53, 10241037.

De Cuyper, N. and De Witte, H. (2005). Job insecurity:mediator or moderator of the relationship betweencontract type and well-being. SA Journal of Indus-trial Psychology, 31(4), 7986.

De Cuyper, N. and De Witte, H. (2006a). The impactof job insecurity and contract type on attitudes,well-being and behavioural reports: a psychologicalcontract perspective. Journal of Occupational andOrganizational Psychology, 79, 395409.

De Cuyper, N. and De Witte, H. (2006b). Autonomyand workload among temporary workers: their effectson job satisfaction, organizational commitment,life satisfaction and self-rated performance.Interna-tional Journal of Stress Management, 13, 441459.


22/27



De Cuyper, N. and De Witte, H. (2006c). Temporaryemployment: volition or stepping stone. Paperpresented at the Sixth Conference on Psychologyand Health, Kerkrade, The Netherlands), 810May.

De Cuyper, N. and De Witte, H. (2007a). Job insecurityamong temporary versus permanent workers: effectson job satisfaction, organizational commitment,life satisfaction and self-rated performance.Work and Stress, 21, 6584.

De Cuyper, N. and De Witte, H. (2007b). Associationsbetween contract preference and attitudes, well-being and behavioural intentions of temporaryworkers. Economic and Industrial Democracy,28(2), 292312.

De Cuyper, N. and De Witte, H. (in press). Jobinsecurity and employability among temporaryworkers: a theoretical approach based on the

psychological contract. In Nswal, K., Hellgren, J.and Sverk, M. (eds), The Individual in the ChangingWorking Life. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.

De Cuyper, N., De Witte, H. and Isaksson, K.(2005a). Employment contracts How to deal withdiversity? In De Cuyper, N., Isaksson, K. and DeWitte, H. (eds), Employment Contracts and Well-

Being Among European Workers. Aldershot:Ashgate, pp. 1534.

De Cuyper, N., De Witte, H. and Isaksson, K. (2005b).Temporary employment in Europe: conclusions. InDe Cuyper, N., Isaksson, K. and De Witte, H. (eds),

Employment Contracts and Well-Being Among

European Workers. Aldershot: Ashgate, pp. 225244.De Cuyper, N., Rigotti, T., De Witte, H. and Mohr, G.

(in press). Balancing psychological contracts.Validation of a typology. International Journal of

Human Resource Management.De Gilder, D. (2003). Commitment, trust and work

behavior. The case of contingent workers.PersonnelReview, 32(2), 588604.

De Grip, A., Hoevenberg, J. and Willems, E. (1997).Atypical employment in the European Union.

International Labour Review, 163(1), 4971.De Jong, J. and Schalk, R. (2005). Temporary

employment in The Netherlands: between flexibilityand Security. In De Cuyper, N., Isaksson, K. andDe Witte, H. (eds), Employment Contracts andWell-Being Among European Workers. Aldershot:Ashgate, pp. 119152.

De Jong, J., De Cuyper, N., De Witte, H., Silla, I. andBernhard-Oettel, C. (2005). Motives and preferencesof temporary workers: a European perspective.

Paper presented at the 12th European congress onWork and Organizational Psychology, Instanbul,May.

De Witte, H. (1999). Job insecurity and psychologicalwell-being: review of the literature and exploration

of some unresolved issues. European Journal ofWork and Organizational Psychology, 8(2), 155177.

De Witte, H. (2005). Job insecurity: review of theinternational literature on definitions, prevalence,antecedents and consequences. SA Journal of

Industrial Psychology, 31(4), 16.De Witte, H. and Nswall, K. (2003). Objective versus

subjective job insecurity: consequences of tem-porary work for job satisfaction and organizationalcommitment in four European countries.Economicand Industrial Democracy, 24(2), 149188.

DiNatale, M. (2001). Characteristics of and preference

for alternative work arrangements. Monthly LaborReview, 124(3), 2849.

Doeringer, P. and Piore, M. (1971). Internal LaborMarkets and Manpower Analysis. Lexington, MA:Lexington Books.

Eberhardt, B. and Moser, S. (1995). The nature andconsequences of part-time work: a test of hypotheses.

Journal of Applied Business Research, 11, 101108.

Ellingson, J.E., Gruys, M.L., and Sackett, P.R. (1998).Factors related to the satisfaction and performanceof temporary employees. Journal of Appl ied

Psychology, 83, 913921.

Engellandt, A. and Riphahn, R.T. (2005). Temporarycontracts and employee efforts.Labour Economics,12, 281299.

Feather, N.T. and Rauter, K.A. (2004). Organizationalcitizenship behaviours in relation to job status,

job insecurity, organizational commitment andidentification, job satisfaction and work values.

Journal of Occupational and Organizational

Psychology, 77, 8194.Feldman, D.C. (2005). Toward a new taxonomy

for understanding the nature and consequencesof contingent employment. Career Development

International, 11(1), 2847.Feldman, D.C. and Turnley, W.H. (2004). Contingent

employment in academic careers: relative depriva-tion among adjunct faculty. Journal of Vocational

Behavior, 64, 284307.Feldman, D.C., Doerpinghaus, H.I. and Turnley, W.H.

(1994). Managing temporary workers: a permanentHRM challenge. Organizational Dynamics, 23,4963.


23/27


December 2007

Felfe, J., Schmook, R., Six, B. and Wieland, R. (2005).Commitment bei Zeitarbeitern [Commitment oftemporary agency workers]. Zeitschrift fr Person-alpsychologie, 4, 101115.

Felstead, A. and Gallie, D. (2004). For better or

worse? Non-standard jobs and high involvementwork systems. International Journal of Human

Resource Management, 15, 12931316.Forde, C. and Slater, G. (2006). The nature and

experience of agency working in Britain: what arethe challenges for human resource management.

Personnel Review, 35(2), 141157.Forrier, A. and Sels, L. (2003). Temporary employment

and employability: training opportunities and effortsof temporary and permanent employees in Belgium.Work, Employment and Society, 17, 641666.

Gagliarducci, S. (2005). The dynamics of repeatedtemporary jobs.Labour Economics, 12, 429448.

Galais, N. (2003). Anpassung bei Zeitarbeitnehmern Eine Lngsschnittstudie zu individuellen Deter-minanten der bernahme und des Wohlbefindens[Accomodation in temporary workers a longitudinalstudy concerning determinants of adaptation andwell-being]. Unpublished dissertation, Friedrich-Alexander-Universitt Erlangen-Nrnberg.

Gallagher, D. and Futagami, S. (1998). Commitmentto the agency, client and work: a study of temporaryhelp workers in Japan. Paper presented at theAcademy of Management Annual Meeting, SanDiego, August.

Gallagher, D.G. and McLean Parks, J. (2001). I

pledge thee my troth ... contingently: commitmentand the contingent work relationship. Human

Resource Management Review, 11, 181208.Gallagher, D.G. and Sverke, M. (2005). Contingent

employment contracts: are existing employmenttheories still relevant? Economic and Industrial

Democracy,

Documents

Literature Review Of