Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Saija Mauno, University of Jyväskylä Anne Mäkikangas, University of Jyväskylä Ulla Kinnunen, University of Tampere FINLAND The effects of long-term temporary.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Saija Mauno, University of Jyväskylä Anne Mäkikangas, University of Jyväskylä Ulla Kinnunen, University of Tampere FINLAND The effects of long-term temporary."— Presentation transcript:

1 Saija Mauno, University of Jyväskylä Anne 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

2 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

3 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

4 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. 2011 Participants represented Finnish university employees from two rather similar universities Temporary contracts are very common in Finnish universities (50-60%) On-line questionnaire was filled out in three waves  2008=T1, 2009=T2, 2010=T3 Altogether 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)

5 Group Differences at T1 in Backgrounds Background factorLTT-group %LTP-group % Women3234 Mean age M (SD)37 (9)50 (8)*** > Master’s degree2023* Supervisory position1018*** 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 home2538*** Spouse permanently employed2637*** Economic stress2.40 (.78)***2.16 (.80) * The difference is statistically significant. Typical/higher for this group.

6 Measures ScaleReferenceNo.of items/ (rating) Alphas T1, T2, T3 Job insecurityDe Witte 20004 (1-7).91,.93,.91 WorkloadQPS Nordic3 (1-5).83,.80,.83 Job controlQPS Nordic4 (1-5).73,.72,.74 Support (co-worker)QPS Nordic2 (1-5).84,.84,.86 Justice (supervisor)QPS Nordic2 (1-5).91,.91,.90 Vigor at workSchaufeli et al. 20063 (1-7).88,.90,.91 Job satisafactionOne-item based1 (1-7) Job exhaustionMaslach et al. 19963 (1-7).89,.88,.90 Stress symptomsLehto & Sutela 20086 (1-6).87,.88,.88 Life satisfactionOne-item-based1 (1-7)

7 Results on Group Differences for Work Characteristics & Well-being Scale LabelGroup x Time Interactions Group Main EffectTime Main Effect InsecurityF=1.78, p=.169F=210.23, p=.000, T > PF=0.89, p=.411 WorkloadF=0.16, p=.853F=15.69, p=.009, P > TF=0.66, p=.517 Control (fig.1)F=4.56,p=.011F=11.08, p=.001, T > PF=2.10, p=.124 Support (fig.2)F=3.76,p=.024F=0.27, p=.605F=0.54, p=585 Justice (fig.3)F=3.56,p=.035F=0.62, p=.804F=0.39, p=.679 Vigor at workF=1.70, p=.184F=0.55, p=.457F=0.77, p=.462 J. satisfactionF=2.89,p=.057F=0.13, p=.722F=0.40, p=.669 J. exhaustionF=1.08, p=.342F=0.18, p=.674F=0.40, p=.961 SymptomsF=0.64, p=.529F=0.17, p=.677F=0.99, p=.489 L. satisfactionF=0.29,p=.747F=1.03, p=.310F=0.15, p=.860 Analysis of Variance for Repeated Measures. Adjusted for gender, education and age Note. T=temporary employees, P=Permanent employees

8 Figure 1: Job control

9 Figure 2: Co-worker support

10 Figure 3: Justice

11 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?

12 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

13 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)

14 Thanks for your attention! ask more: This study was supported by the Academy of Finland (grant numbers 124360, 218260)

Download ppt "Saija Mauno, University of Jyväskylä Anne Mäkikangas, University of Jyväskylä Ulla Kinnunen, University of Tampere FINLAND The effects of long-term temporary."

Similar presentations

Ads by Google