1. Fortes-Ferreira, Lina 1,2, Moliner, Carolina 1, Silla, Inmaculada 1, and Gracia, Francisco 1 1 University of Valencia, Spain 2 Escola Superior de Ciências Empresariais Instituto Politécnico de Setúbal INTRODUCTION METHOD RESULTS CONCLUSIONS REFERENCES The aim of the present study is to analyze the role of the state of the psychological contract in the relationship between contingent work and individual (job satisfaction and job insecurity) and organizational outcomes (perceived performance, organizational commitment). The findings from this research suggest that contract status is not so relevant as the state of the psychological contract. The component of the state of the psychological contract that received more support was delivery. It predicts perceived performance, organizational commitment, job satisfaction and job insecurity. This result is coherent with the ones attained in other studies in what concerns to the direct effects between violation of the psychological contract and different outcomes, such as job satisfaction, intentions to remain, citizenship behavior (Robinson, 1996; Robinson & Morrison, 1995; Robinson & Rousseau, 1994; Robinson & Morrison, 1995). In addition, results revealed trust as a relevant variable having a positive direct effect on organizational commitment and job insecurity. Related to justice, this was found to be a relevant variable as well, predicting organizational commitment. On another hand, results show that only two of the outcomes studied are significantly predicted by contract status. Specifically, temporary workers perceive high levels of organizational commitment and job insecurity. The high incidence of temporary employment and high unemployment observed in Spain (Dolado, García-Serrano & Jimeno, 2002) could be a possible explanation to the surprising result about organizational commitment. In fact, some authors consider that taking into consideration labor market could explain the little association between contract status with individual and organizational outcomes, and sometimes the inverse results to what was expected. As Van Dyne & Ang (1998) said, in contexts of high employment, “when contingent workers prefer regular jobs, they may be motivated to display positive attitudes (…) in hope of obtaining regular employment” (p. 693). Taking in account these considerations, we could expect that the labor market could help us to understand why temporary workers have higher levels of organizational commitment than permanent employees. Some relevant indicators that characterizes labour market, like unemployment rates and job alternatives, could be interesting to consider in future research. Regarding to the moderator effect, results support the moderating effect of trust in the relationship between contractual status and job insecurity. Comparing to permanent workers, temporary workers when they perceived high levels of trust they display significantly lower levels of job insecurity. Similar results were found by Van Dyne & Ang (1998). However, the empirical research about the interaction between contractual status and the state of the psychological contract is still very scarce, and so more research that takes into account moderator variables is necessary in order to better understand employees attitudes and behaviors. Today’s employment relationships in industrialized countries have undergone deep changes. Contract flexibility becomes more and more attractive for the organizations, which at the same time require high levels of commitment and performance to employees. This constitutes the main paradox nowadays organizations have to deal with (e.g., Rousseau & Parks, 1993; De Meuse et al., 1994; Mohrman & Lawler, 1997; Gracia, Martínez-Tur & Peiró, 2001). Particularly Spain is an interesting case study, having the highest incidence of temporary employment in the EU since 1984, and staying above 30 % since 1990 (Dolado, García-Serrano & Jimeno, 2002). This increased of contingent workers makes necessary the development of the research concerning contingent work and their consequences on organizational outcomes. Literature concerning this topic shows a lack of clarity, reinforcing the need of more research in order to clarify contradictory results regarding to organizational outcomes such as job satisfaction and involvement for temporary employed (e. g. Pearce, 1997, Guest, 2000, Sverke et al., 2000), extra-role behaviors and organizational commitment (Pearce, 1993), and performance (Broschak & Davis-Blake, 1999). The contradictory results may be caused by the fact that some moderator variables have not been taken into consideration (Van Dyne & Ang, 1998). The role of the psychological contract seems to be a critical issue, and research that considers the psychological contract into the study of contingent work is still scarce. Fewer empirical research links contingent work to psychological contract (Van Dyne & Ang, 1998; Coyle-Shapiro & Kessler, 2002, Millward and Hopkins 1998, McDonald and Makin, 2000). Guest (1998) proposed a theoretical framework to study psychological contract. The author considers the state of the psychological contract as a relevant antecedent of job satisfaction, organizational commitment, sense of security, employment relations, motivation, organizational citizenship, absence and intention to quit. As determinants of the state of the psychological contract the author suggests organizational culture, human resource management policy and practice, experience, expectations and alternatives. Therefore the author considers the state of the psychological contract a key issue of the study of the psychological contract. The author highlight that the state of psychological contract includes the dynamic perspective inherent in the psychological contract. It is composed by three components largely mentioned in the literature: trust, fairness and delivery of the deal. For instance, Pearce (1998) referred to trust and justice as independent factors of job security, and argued that these may be the important drivers of employee attitudes and actions at work. Most of previous research focused on the association between violation of psychological contract and organizational outcomes shows the relevance of the delivery of the deal. The sample consisted of 359 service employees (25.9% men and 74.1% women), of them, 69 % were permanent workers, while 31 % were temporary. (see Figure 1). To test the hypothesis, we carried out hierarchical regression analysis, in which the independent variables are introduced in a predetermined sequence. - Gracia, F.J., Martínez-Tur, V. & Peiró, J.M. (2001). Tendencias y controversias en el futuro de la gestión y del desarrollo de los recursos humanos. In E. Agulló & A. Ovejero (Coords.). Trabajo, Individuo y Sociedad. Perspectivas psicosociológicas sobre el futuro del trabajo pp. 165 ‑ 201. Madrid: Pirámide. - Guest, D.E. (1998). Is the Psychological Contract Worth Taking Seriously? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19: 649-664. Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations, internal consistency reliabilities, and Pearson correlation for the sample and table 2 presents the results for Hierarquical Regression Analyses. The results attained show that all the outcomes studied are significantly predicted by one of the components of the state of psychological contract (delivery of the deal). Increases of delivery of the deal are associated with increases of organizational commitment, job satisfaction and perceived performance. Delivery of the deal also predicts job insecurity. Increases of delivery of the deal decreases job insecurity. The results also show direct links from trust (another component of the psychological contract) to organizational commitment, and job insecurity. Increases of trust are associated with increases of organizational commitment and decreases of job insecurity. Finally, the results show that only one of the outcomes studied (organizational commitment) is significantly predicted by the other component of the state of the psychological contract (justice). Increases of justice are significantly related to increases of organizational commitment. Concerning the state of the psychological contract, it was positively associated to job satisfaction, organizational commitment, motivation, a positive evaluation of employment relations as well as lower intention to quit. More research should be conducted in order to study the relationship between contract status and the state of the psychological contract. Moreover, studying the association between the state of the psychological contract and organizational outcomes will contribute to construct a theoretical framework. On our part, we don’t know any empirical research that analyses the relationship between contract status and state of psychological contract (like is defined by Guest, 1998), predicting organizational outcomes. The present study analyses the role of the state of the psychological contract in the relationship between contingent work and individual outcomes (job satisfaction and job insecurity), and organizational outcomes (perceived performance, organizational commitment). Having in consideration the literature reviewed, the following hypotheses are formulated in the present study: Hypothesis 1: State of psychological contract will predict in stronger measure individual and organizational outcomes than contract status. Particularly, direct effects of state of psychological contract on outcomes will be of positive value on job satisfaction, perceived performance and organizational commitment and of negative value on job insecurity. Hypothesis 2: State of psychological contract will moderate the relationship between contract status and individual and organizational outcomes. Figure 2. Figure 1. Contingent Work - Robinson, S.L. & Morrison, E.W. (2000). The development of psychological contract breach and violation: a longitudinal study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21: 525-546. -Van Dyne, L &And, s. (1998). Organizational Citizenship Behavior of Contingent Workers in Singapore. Academy of Management Journal, 41: 692-703. Table 1. Means, standard deviations and Pearson correlations among the variables in this study (n= 359) Table 2. Results for Hierarquical Regression Analyses in Predicting Outcomes On another hand, results show that two of the outcomes studied (organizational commitment and job insecurity) are significantly predicted by contract status. Temporary workers perceive high levels of organizational commitment and job insecurity. Considering all of these results, Hypothesis 1 is partially confirmed. Lastly, it is attained a significant interaction between the contract status and trust on job insecurity (see Table 2 and Figure 2). Despite the fact temporary workers are always the ones that perceive more insecurity, when they perceive high levels of trust they display significantly lower levels of job insecurity. Contrarily, for permanent workers, there isn’t significantly effect of trust on job insecurity. Therefore, the Hypothesis 2 is partially confirmed in our study. Outcomes: Job Insecurity Job Satisfaction Org. Commitment Perc. Performance Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Beta Beta Beta Beta Beta Beta Beta Beta Beta Beta Beta Beta Step 1 Tenure -.04.06.06 -.12 -.03 -.04-.16** -.06 -.06-.07.00 -.01 Sex-.03 -.05 -.05 -.05 -.05 -.05-.04 -.58 -.06-.17** -.18** -.17** Age-.29*** -.23*** -.23*** -.00.03.02.11.14**.15**-.02.00 -.01 Step 2 Contract -.38***-.38*** -.06 -.05 -.12** -.12** -.06 -.06 Trust -.06 -.29**.06.07.15**.15.09 -.03 Justice -.00.16.04.03.14**.17 -.08 -.12 Delivery -.12** -.23**.38***.44***.35***.28**.26***.43*** Step 3 Trust x Contract.27** -.01 -.01.14 Justice x Contract -.18.01 -.04.03 Delivery x Contract.13 -.08.07 -.19 R 2.100.236.255.02.18.19.02.28.28.04.11.12 R 2 change.100***.136***.019 #.02.17***.00.02.26***.00.04*.07***.01 Note. # p<.1 * p <.05 ** p <.01 ***p <.001