Saija Mauno, University of JyväskyläAnne Mäkikangas, University of Jyväskylä

Ulla Kinnunen, University of Tampere FINLAND

The effects of long-term temporary work compared to permanent work

on perceived work characteristics and well-being: A three-wave study

EUROCIETT MEETING LEUVEN, 27.10-28.10. 2011

Background

We lack information whether long-term temporary work has negative effects on employees’ work experiences and well-being

When temporary job contract becomes longer it might have negative effects on employees’ in line with the ’trap-hypothesis’

Eearlier longitudinal studies are few and partly consistent with this reasoning (see Kompier et al. 2009; Mauno et al. 2011; Parker et al. 2002)

In Finland, also long-term temporary contracts are possible, and do exist in certain fields, providing a good starting point to examine their long-term effects

Aim and Hypothesis

To investigate whether long-term temporary employees report negative, or even positive, changes in their perceived work characteristics and well-being over time

Hypothesis: their experiences on work characteristics and well-being will become more negative over time (trap-view)

Work characteristics: workload, insecurity, control, co-worker support & supervisory justice

Well-being indicators: vigor at work, job satisfaction, job exhaustion, stress symptoms & life satisfaction

Long-term temporary employees, LTT-group, had the fixed-term contract at minimum for 3 years

Long-term permanent, LTP-group, employees formed the comparison group

Participants

On-going research project ”Are temporary workers a disadvantaged group?”/Academy of Finland For more, see De Cuyper et al. 2011; Kinnunen et

al. 2011; Kirves et al. 2011; Mauno et al. 2011Participants represented Finnish university

employees from two rather similar universitiesTemporary contracts are very common in Finnish

universities (50-60%)On-line questionnaire was filled out in three waves

2008=T1, 2009=T2, 2010=T3Altogether 926 participants in all three waves

Of them, 318 were in LTT-group and 297 in LTP-group: N = 615 (66% of all T1, T2, T3 respondents)

Group Differences at T1 in Backgrounds

Background factor LTT-group %

LTP-group %

Women 32 34

Mean age M (SD) 37 (9) 50 (8)***

> Master’s degree 20 23*

Supervisory position 10 18***

Weekly working hours M (SD) 41 (6) 42 (8)

Job tenure M (SD) 13 (9) 26 (9)***

Earlier temporary contracts M (SD) 13 (12)*** 9 (8)

Children at home 25 38***

Spouse permanently employed 26 37***

Economic stress 2.40 (.78)*** 2.16 (.80)* The difference is statistically significant. Typical/higher for this group.

Measures

Scale Reference No.of items/ (rating)

Alphas T1, T2, T3

Job insecurity De Witte 2000 4 (1-7) .91, .93, .91

Workload QPS Nordic 3 (1-5) .83, .80, .83

Job control QPS Nordic 4 (1-5) .73, .72, .74

Support (co-worker)

QPS Nordic 2 (1-5) .84, .84, .86

Justice (supervisor)

QPS Nordic 2 (1-5) .91, .91, .90

Vigor at work Schaufeli et al. 2006 3 (1-7) .88, .90, .91

Job satisafaction One-item based 1 (1-7)

Job exhaustion Maslach et al. 1996 3 (1-7) .89, .88, .90

Stress symptoms Lehto & Sutela 2008 6 (1-6) .87, .88, .88

Life satisfaction One-item-based 1 (1-7)

Results on Group Differences for Work Characteristics & Well-being

Scale Label Group x Time Interactions

Group Main Effect Time Main Effect

Insecurity F=1.78, p=.169 F=210.23, p=.000, T > P

F=0.89, p=.411

Workload F=0.16, p=.853 F=15.69, p=.009, P > T

F=0.66, p=.517

Control (fig.1)

F=4.56,p=.011 F=11.08, p=.001, T > P

F=2.10, p=.124

Support (fig.2)

F=3.76,p=.024 F=0.27, p=.605 F=0.54, p=585

Justice (fig.3)

F=3.56,p=.035 F=0.62, p=.804 F=0.39, p=.679

Vigor at work

F=1.70, p=.184 F=0.55, p=.457 F=0.77, p=.462

J. satisfaction

F=2.89,p=.057 F=0.13, p=.722 F=0.40, p=.669

J. exhaustion

F=1.08, p=.342 F=0.18, p=.674 F=0.40, p=.961

Symptoms F=0.64, p=.529 F=0.17, p=.677 F=0.99, p=.489

L. satisfaction

F=0.29,p=.747 F=1.03, p=.310 F=0.15, p=.860

Analysis of Variance for Repeated Measures. Adjusted for gender, education and ageNote. T=temporary employees, P=Permanent employees

Figure 1: Job control

Figure 2: Co-worker support

Figure 3: Justice

Conclusions (1)

No decrease among LTT or LTP workers in well-being Are some mediators involved, e.g., job characteristics? Poorer work characteristics may cause poorer well-being

LTT workers reported a decrease in co-worker support and supervisory justice over time Temporary workers have less job resources when temporary

contract is getting a ’more permanent’ arrangement

An increase in support at T2 among LTP workers Organizational changes in were launched at T2 LTT workers in worse position in organizational changes?

Conclusions (2)

A very modest decrease in job control among LTT workers, whereas LTP workers showed a very modest increase over time

LTT workers reported higher job control compared to LTP workers at each time point (strong main effect) Position might matter: LTP workers are in high-status jobs, i.e.,

as professors, lecturers, senior researchers, implying more workload but also less job control

Strong main effect for workload (P > T) at T1, T2, T3

LTT work means more perceived job insecurity Very strong main effect at T1, T2, T3 (T > P) Implications for well-being? Job insecurity is a severe stressor

To Be Examined...

Does poorer work characteristics operate as mediators between contract type and well-being? More negative changes found in work characteristics See the findings by Kompier et al. 2009; Mauno et al. 2011

Does age or earlier temporary career line moderate the relationships? Older LTT workers -> more negative perceptions? Earlier temporary working career -> more negative

perceptions?

Contract transitions were not yet investigated 34% of the respondents were excluded from this study Contract transitions complex in multi-wave data (small groups)

Thanks for your attention!

ask more: saija.mauno@jyu.fi

This study was supported by the Academy of Finland (grant numbers 124360, 218260)