See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232445153

Autonomy and Workload Among Temporary Workers:

Their Effects on Job Satisfaction, Organizational
Commitment, Life Satisfacti....

Article  in  International Journal of Stress Management · November 2006

DOI: 10.1037/1072-5245.13.4.441

CITATIONS READS

76 1,153

2 authors:

Nele De Cuyper Hans De Witte

University of Leuven University of Leuven
121 PUBLICATIONS   3,518 CITATIONS    328 PUBLICATIONS   8,755 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Cyber-Shoc View project

PSYCONES Psychological contracts across employment situations. View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Hans De Witte on 13 October 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Autonomy and Workload Among Temporary
Workers: Their Effects on Job Satisfaction,
Organizational Commitment, Life Satisfaction,
and Self-Rated Performance
Nele De Cuyper and Hans De Witte
Katholieke Universiteit Leuven

This study investigates the role of autonomy and workload in explaining

responses of temporary employees (N ⫽ 189) compared with permanent
employees (N ⫽ 371) on job satisfaction, organizational commitment, life
satisfaction, and performance. Results based on regression analyses suggest
that the effects of contract type are not mediated by autonomy or by
workload. Rather, this study partially supports hypotheses on the differential
reactions of temporaries and permanents to autonomy or workload; auton-
omy was not predictive for temporaries’ job satisfaction and organizational
commitment, and workload was not predictive for temporaries’ life satisfac-
tion, whereas they were predictive for permanents’ responses.
Keywords: temporary employment, autonomy, workload

The recent growth in temporary employment (e.g., OECD, 2002) has

opened up new avenues for validating well-established stress models. Models
that proved predictive among permanent workers are being retested among a
population of temporary workers (Connelly & Gallagher, 2004), that is,
employees who hold dependent jobs of limited duration, as in the case of
fixed-term contract workers (Polivka & Nardone, 1989). In this respect,
surprisingly little work has been carried out on job characteristics theory,
most notably the Job Demand Control Model (Karasek & Theorell, 1990;

Nele De Cuyper and Hans De Witte, Research Group Stress, Health and Well-Being,
Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium.
This research is part of the Psycones-project (PSYchological CONtracts across Employ-
ment Situations) supported by a grant from the EU, 5th framework programme (HPSE-CT-
2002-00121). Additional information about the project is available at www.uv.es/⬃psycon
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Nele De Cuyper, Depart-
ment of Psychology, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Tiensestraat 102, 3000, Leuven, Belgium.
E-mail: nele.decuyper@psy.kuleuven.be

441
International Journal of Stress Management Copyright 2006 by the American Psychological Association
2006, Vol. 13, No. 4, 441– 459 1072-5245/06/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/1072-5245.13.4.441
442 De Cuyper and De Witte

Theorell & Karasek, 1996; for an exception, see Bernhard-Oettel, Sverke &
De Witte, 2005). This has, however, dominated research on quality of
working life during the last decades (Van der Doef & Maes, 1999).
In response to the shortage of empirically informed studies on job
characteristics, the current study investigates the role of autonomy (job
control) and workload (job demands) in explaining temporaries’ (compared
with permanents’) responses on job satisfaction, organizational commitment,
life satisfaction, and self-rated performance. These outcomes cover the quad-
rants that distinguish immediate from long-term reactions and individual
from organizational outcomes (Table 1; Sverke, Hellgren & Näswall, 2003).
Specifically, we investigated the possibility of mediation by job characteris-
tics, as well as possible interaction effects of job characteristics and contract
type.

JOB CHARACTERISTICS: A MEDIATION APPROACH

Poor quality of temporary jobs, most notably low control, is central to

most of the theoretical speculation on the possible harmful effects of being
temporarily employed (Beard & Edwards, 1995; Sverke, Gallagher & Hell-
gren, 2000). For example, temporaries experienced less autonomy in the
European Surveys on Working Conditions (Benach, Gimeno, & Benavides,
2002; Goudswaard & Andries, 2002). Similarly, Aronsson, Gustafsson, and
Dallner (2002) found a significant negative association between temporary
employment and various aspects of control. Drawing on the body of research
on the detrimental effects of low control (Fried & Ferris, 1987; Sparks,
Faragher, & Cooper, 2001), this suggests overall negative consequences for
temporaries because of mediation by control.
Empirical research does, however, not always support this assumption
but instead shows inconsistent and often contradictory results (Connelly &
Gallagher, 2004). Although some studies supported the hypothesis of unfa-
vorable attitudes among temporaries (Benach et al., 2002; OECD, 2002; Van
Dyne & Ang, 1998), others found nonsignificant differences (De Witte &
Näswall, 2003; Pearce, 1993). Still others observed higher job satisfaction
(Galup, Saunders, Nelson, & Cerveny, 1997) and organizational commitment

Table 1. Outcome Variables

Individual Organizational
Immediate Job attitudes, e.g., job satisfaction Organizational attitudes, e.g.,
organizational commitment
Long-term Health and well-being, e.g., life Work-related behavior, e.g., self-rated
satisfaction performance
Note. Adapted from Sverke, Hellgren, & Näswall, 2002.
Autonomy and Workload Among Temporaries 443

(McDonald & Makin, 2000) among temporaries compared with permanents.

Furthermore, measures of psychological well-being such as life satisfaction
have shown nonsignificant differences or poorer results for permanents.
Finally, Belgian and Dutch studies did not find contract-based differences in
performance, whereas permanents reported higher performance scores in
Germany and lower scores in Israel (De Cuyper, De Witte, & Isaksson,
2005).
Attempts to explain the mixed observations have focused on the possi-
bility of “balancing” job characteristics (Parker, Griffin, Sprigg, & Wall,
2002); besides its association with low control, temporary employment may
have potential benefits, such as reduced demands. Employers invest consid-
erably in permanent employment relationships. This may create an obligation
to return hard work, which is less likely among temporaries (Parker et al.,
2002). Some studies have demonstrated lower workload among temporaries
compared with permanents (Garcı́a-Montalvo, Peiró, & Soro Bonmati, 2003,
in Caballer, Silla, Gracia & Ramos, 2005; Goudswaard & Andries, 2002;
Parker et al., 2002). Others, however, did not establish contract-based dif-
ferences on workload (Bernhard-Oettel et al., 2005; Saloniemi, Virtanen, &
Vahtera, 2004; Sverke et al., 2000; Van Breukelen & Allegro, 2000).
The net effect of balancing job characteristics might be nonsignificant
differences between temporaries and permanents on psychological outcomes
(see Figure 1): Temporary employment might be associated with low auton-
omy, which is likely to yield harmful outcomes, and with low workload,
which is likely to yield favorable outcomes. More specifically, the harmful

Autonomy
+
-

Job satisfaction
Temporary Employment
Organizational commitment

Life satisfaction

- Performance

-
Workload

Figure 1. Balancing job characteristics.

444 De Cuyper and De Witte

impact of low autonomy may be masked by low workload, and low auton-
omy, in turn, may mask possible effects of workload. However, when
controlling for each other, autonomy and workload are assumed to mediate
the relationship between contract type and psychological outcomes. Accord-
ingly, we hypothesize the following:

Hypothesis 1: After controlling for workload, autonomy mediates the

relationship between contract type and job satisfaction (H1a), organiza-
tional commitment (H1b), life satisfaction (H1c), and performance
(H1d).

Hypothesis 2: After controlling for autonomy, workload mediates the

relationship between contract type and job satisfaction (H2a), organiza-
tional commitment (H2b), life satisfaction (H2c), and performance
(H2d).

Still, this advanced mediation perspective might be problematic for reasons

other than the inconsistent relationship between contract type and workload.
Reduced job demands may not be unambiguously beneficial, particularly not
if combined with low control. In fact, a large share of temporaries may be in
passive jobs, which are high on stress risk (De Jong & Schalk, 2005). This
aligns with Warr’s (1994) suggestion on curvilinear relationships to predict
stress: Work underload may be as harmful as work overload, support for
which has been reported by Rogers’ (1995) in-depth interviews among
temporaries.

JOB CHARACTERISTICS: A MODERATION APPROACH

The lack of firm empirical support related to the mediation approach and
the possible stress-inducing effects of work underload may challenge re-
searchers to explore other research designs. Basically, mediation frameworks
assume that temporaries and permanents react in exactly the same way to
stressors. An important question in research on temporary employment,
however, may concern the extent to which existing theories are applicable to
temporary workers (Gallagher & Sverke, 2005). In fact, it could be argued
that temporaries and permanents may react differently to autonomy but not to
workload.
First, research has assumed that an acceptable level of control is part of
employees’ expectations. Although this is probably true for permanent work-
ers, it might be invalid for temporary workers. However, expectations are
crucial in shaping employees’ responses, as advanced by psychological
Autonomy and Workload Among Temporaries 445

contract theory (Rousseau, 1995) and as demonstrated by various authors

(e.g., Conway & Briner, 2002; Coyle-Shapiro & Kessler, 2002; Johnson &
O’Leary-Kelly, 2003). Specifically, temporaries compared with permanents
are more likely to be employed to perform discrete, easily monitored tasks in
jobs with clear performance expectations (McLean Parks, Kidder, & Gal-
lagher, 1998; Parker et al., 2002). This aligns with research findings that
temporaries compared with permanents are more likely to hold transactional
psychological contracts (Coyle-Shapiro & Kessler, 2002; Millward & Hop-
kins, 1998; Van Dyne & Ang, 1998); that is, in their psychological contract,
tangible expectations and monetizable rewards are foremost. Autonomy
introduces aspects of subjectivity as opposed to unambiguously defined job
requirements and may not fit the otherwise transactional job design of
temporaries. Hence, temporaries may not expect or may not feel entitled to
high levels of autonomy, and this, in turn, may reduce possible negative effects
of low autonomy. No such differential effects are expected for workload. A high
workload may violate the economic deal of pay for attendance implied in all
employees’ expectations. As a consequence, a high workload may yield overall
harmful effects. This line of reasoning aligns with research on the importance of
psychological contract breach in explaining workers’ attitudes, well-being, and
behaviors (e.g., Lambert, Edwards, & Cable, 2003).
Second, there are obvious parallels between autonomy, job insecurity,
and occupational preference within research on temporary employment,
whereas no such similarities with workload exist. Particularly, control un-
derlies the concept of autonomy, job insecurity, and occupational preference;
uncontrollability plays a crucial role in explaining the harmful consequences
of job insecurity (De Witte, 1999), and occupational preference or being
employed in one’s occupation of choice represents an aspect of control over
working life (Aronsson & Göransson, 1999; Aronsson et al., 2002). Further-
more, research is fairly consistent in its observation of lower control among
temporaries along these dimensions: Temporaries experience lower auton-
omy, they are more job insecure (Kinnunen & Nätti, 1994; Näswall & De
Witte, 2003; Sverke et al., 2000), and they are less likely to be employed in
their preferred occupation (Aronsson & Göransson, 1999; Aronsson et al.,
2002). A number of recent publications found that job insecurity is less
predictive for temporaries’ compared with permanents’ responses: Insecure
temporaries do not differ from their secure colleagues, whereas job insecurity
negatively affects job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and health
among permanents (Bernhard-Oettel et al., 2005; De Cuyper & De Witte,
2005; De Witte & Näswall, 2003; Mauno, Kinnunen, Mäkikangas, & Nätti,
2005; Sverke et al., 2000; Virtanen, Vahtera, Kivimäki, Pentii, & Ferrie,
2002). Similarly, not being in one’s preferred occupation was more predictive
for poor health among permanents compared with temporaries in the study by
Aronsson and colleagues (Aronsson & Göransson, 1999; Aronsson et al.,
446 De Cuyper and De Witte

2002). These findings could perhaps be generalized to autonomy. In line with

these arguments, our third hypothesis reads as follows:

Hypothesis 3: The interaction between contract type and autonomy adds

in explaining variance in job satisfaction, organizational commitment,
life satisfaction and self-rated performance. Autonomy is more predic-
tive for permanents’ responses compared with temporaries’ responses.
No such interaction is expected for workload.

METHOD

Procedure and Data Collection

In spring 2004, 568 employees from divisions of eight Belgian compa-

nies filled out a survey on the quality of working life: one industrial setting
(N ⫽ 259) and seven smaller retail organizations (N ⫽ 301). The response
rate in the industrial setting was 86.7%. Response in the retail sector varied
from 12.3% to 58%. However, well above one third of those addressed
responded to the questionnaire in five of seven retail organizations. The
lowest response rates were obtained in the smallest organizations, which did
not have a human resources department to actively support the research and
research goals. Organizations as well as sectors were recruited on the basis of
expected variation in employment contracts and taking into account possi-
bilities of generalizing findings. A special effort was made to sample fixed-
term contract workers. These workers were hired to match staff to peaks in
demands or to cover short-term or long-term absence of permanent workers.
Agency workers (N ⫽ 8) were excluded from the analyses because of the
particular triangular employment relationship they are in. As a consequence,
total sample size was 560. The participants completed confidential question-
naires during working time or at home. The questionnaire was accompanied
by a letter from the human resources manager or general manager stressing
confidentiality and voluntary participation, as well as the importance of the
study for all parties involved.

Respondents

About one of three respondents (33.8%; N ⫽ 189) was employed on a

fixed-term contract. The remaining 371 respondents (66.3%) were perma-
nently employed (open-ended employment). More blue-collar workers
(65.2%) than white-collar workers (34.8%) and more women (65.3%) than
men (34.7%) participated. A minority reported to be single (12.3%). The
Autonomy and Workload Among Temporaries 447

others were married or cohabiting (87.7%). On average, respondents worked

31 hours. Mean age was 35 years, and mean tenure was 10 years. Respon-
dents spent on average 12 years in full-time education; the majority (78.4%)
did not complete studies beyond high school level.
The temporary and permanent sample differed on several background
variables. Of the temporary sample, 64.6% worked in the retail sector,
whereas there were about as many permanents employed in the retail orga-
nizations (48.2%) and in the industrial organization (51.8%), ␹2(1, N ⫽
560) ⫽ 13.39, p ⬍ .01. The average difference in tenure between temporaries
(M ⫽ 3 years) and permanents (M ⫽ 14 years) exceeded 10 years, t(552) ⫽
⫺15.16, p ⬍ .01. Likewise, temporaries (M ⫽ 29 years) were on average 8
years younger than permanents (M ⫽ 37), t(533) ⫽ ⫺9.22, p ⬍ .01.
Furthermore, permanents (M ⫽ 33 hr/week) worked on average more hours
per week than temporaries (M ⫽ 28 hr/week), t(547) ⫽ ⫺6.48, p ⬍ .01. More
temporaries (16%) than permanents (10%) reported to be single, ␹2(1, N ⫽
545) ⫽ 5.34, p ⬍ .05. Finally, the temporary sample contained significantly
more women (74%) compared with the permanent sample (61%), ␹2(1, N ⫽
548) ⫽ 9.80, p ⬍ .01. No such differences were found concerning occupa-
tional status, ␹2(1, N ⫽ 538) ⫽ .42, ns.

Measures

All scales reported in this section were found to have single-factor

structures (Principal Component Analysis [PCA], Varimax Rotation). Except
for life satisfaction, they were from standardized instruments that were found
reliable in earlier studies and in various samples. Information about means,
standard deviations, and correlations between scales can be found in Table 2.
Control variables—age (years), weekly working hours (average hr/
week), and education (years in full-time education)—were continuous vari-
ables. Occupational position (0 ⫽ blue-collar worker; 1 ⫽ white-collar
worker), family status (0 ⫽ married or cohabiting; 1 ⫽ single), and gender

Table 2. Correlation Matrix

Predictors M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6
1. Permanent contract .66 .47 1
2. Autonomy 3.32 .88 .09* 1
3. Workload 2.57 .78 .15** ⫺.03 1
4. Job satisfaction 3.98 .68 ⫺.16** .26** ⫺.24** 1
5. Organizational commitment 3.70 .61 ⫺.06 .26** ⫺.15** .67** 1
6. Life satisfaction 5.42 1.05 ⫺.01 .15* ⫺.17** .33** .26** 1
7. Performance 4.09 .45 .08 .28** .09* .29** .36** .18**
*
p ⬍ .05. **
p ⬍ .01.
448 De Cuyper and De Witte

(0 ⫽ female, 1 ⫽ male) were dummy-coded. Sector of employment (retail vs.

industry) was not included because of its high correlation with occupational
status (r ⫽ ⫺.67). Tenure was not included because of its high correlation
with age (r ⫽ .70).
Type of contract was dummy-coded: 0 represented temporary workers
(i.e., fixed-term contract workers), whereas 1 represented permanent workers
(i.e., open-ended employment).
Autonomy was measured with four items previously used by Rosenthal,
Guest, and Peccei (1996). A sample item is “I can plan my own work” (␣ ⫽
.77). Responses varied from 1 (rarely or never) to five (very often or always).
Workload was assessed with four items developed by Semmer, Zapf, and
Dunckel (1999) for their Instrument for Stress-Related Work Analysis. Examples
are questions such as “How often do you miss all or part of a (lunch)break
because of having too much work,” or “how often are you pressed for time?”
Responses varied from 1 (rarely or never) to 5 (very often of always), ␣ ⫽ .69.
Job satisfaction was measured with four items developed by Price
(1997); for example, “I find enjoyment in my job.” Respondents answered to
what extent they agreed (1 ⫽ strongly disagree; 5 ⫽ strongly agree) with
each of the four items (␣ ⫽ .83).
Organizational commitment was measured using the five items of Cook
and Wall (1980). “I am quite proud to be able to tell people who it is I work
for” is one item. Responses varied from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly
agree), ␣ ⫽ .75.
Life satisfaction was measured with 6 items developed for the purpose of
this study. The scale was tested earlier in a pilot project, and it was found
reliable in a seven-country sample (Isaksson et al., 2003). A sample item is
“How satisfied do you currently feel about your leisure time?” (␣ ⫽ .88).
Responses varied from 1 (very dissatisfied) to 7 (very satisfied).
Finally, self-rated performance was measured with six items from Abra-
mis (1994). Employees were asked to judge the quality of their performance
during the last working week (“In your own judgment, how well did you
fulfill the following tasks?”) on a scale from 1 (very badly) to 5 (very well),
␣ ⫽ .78. Items referred to, for example, achieving one’s objectives or
performing without mistakes.

Analyses

Hypotheses were tested using regression analyses. Listwise deletion was

applied, which resulted in a slightly reduced sample size. Regression analyses
were performed for all dependent variables separately. In the first step of the
analyses, the control variables (occupational position, age, weekly working
Autonomy and Workload Among Temporaries 449

hours, family status, gender, and education) were entered. When testing
hypotheses related to autonomy, workload was added. Similarly, when test-
ing hypotheses on the possible relationship of workload with the outcomes,
autonomy was added as a control variable. Type of contract was entered in
the second step. Autonomy or workload was entered in the third step. Finally,
the interaction between contract type and either autonomy or workload was
entered. The variables were centered, then they were multiplied, as suggested
by Aiken and West (1991).
Conditional for mediation as formulated in Hypotheses 1 and 2 is that (1)
contract type is related to the mediator (autonomy or workload), (2) contract
type is related to the outcomes, and (3) the mediator (autonomy or workload)
is related to the outcomes. To check the first condition, additional regressions
were performed, with contract type predicting autonomy and workload. As in
the previous regressions, control variables and one of the job characteristics
were entered in the first step. Evidence for mediation is found when contract
type has a smaller or nonsignificant relationship with the outcomes in the
third as compared to the second regression equation (Baron & Kenny, 1986).
When the regression was indicative for a mediator effect, the Sobel test
(Sobel, 1982) was used to assess the extent to which the mediator carried the
effect of contract type on the dependent variables.
Conditional for moderation (Hypothesis 3) is that interaction terms are
significantly related to the outcomes. To further explore significant interac-
tions, low versus high levels of autonomy or workload were distinguished
using a median-split. t tests were performed to further investigate differences
within the group of temporary workers and permanent workers.

RESULTS

Our first hypothesis concerned mediation by autonomy. After controlling

for workload and the individual background variables, contract type was not
related to autonomy (␤ ⫽ .07, ns). From the control variables, occupational
position (␤ ⫽ .16, p ⬍ .01), age (␤ ⫽ .10, p ⬍ .05), and gender (␤ ⫽ .14,
p ⬍ .05) added in explaining autonomy, as did workload (␤ ⫽ ⫺.10, p ⬍
.05). Furthermore, the second step of the regression analysis (see Table 3)
showed that permanent employment was negatively related to job satisfac-
tion. It was not significantly related to organizational commitment, life
satisfaction, and performance. Finally, autonomy was positively related to the
outcomes (Table 3; Step 3). In sum, only one condition for mediation was
fulfilled. Accordingly, we did not find evidence for mediation by autonomy.
Our second hypothesis concerned mediation by workload. The first
condition for mediation was fulfilled: Permanent employment was positively
 450

Table 3. Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analyses: Interaction of Contract Type and Autonomy on the Outcomes
Organizational
Job satisfaction commitment Life satisfaction Performance
Variable Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4
White collar .13** .08 .09 .05 .01 .01 ⫺.03 ⫺.06 ⫺.06 ⫺.08 ⫺.13** ⫺.13**
Age .01 ⫺.02 ⫺.01 .13* .11* .12* ⫺.10* ⫺.12* ⫺.11* .17** .14** .14**
Male ⫺.06 ⫺.10* ⫺.10* .01 ⫺.02 ⫺.02 ⫺.07 ⫺.10* ⫺.10* .04 ⫺.00 ⫺.00
Working hours ⫺.04 ⫺.05 ⫺.06 ⫺.06 ⫺.06 ⫺.07 .02 .02 .01 ⫺.03 ⫺.03 ⫺.03
Single ⫺.07 ⫺.06 ⫺.05 ⫺.09 ⫺.08 ⫺.08 ⫺.18** ⫺.17** ⫺.17** ⫺.04 ⫺.02 ⫺.02
Education ⫺.04 ⫺.04 ⫺.04 ⫺.04 ⫺.04 ⫺.04 .03 .03 .03 ⫺.02 ⫺.02 ⫺.02
Workload ⫺.21** ⫺.18** ⫺.18** ⫺.15** ⫺.12** ⫺.12** ⫺.21** ⫺.19** ⫺.19** .09 .13** .13**
Permanent contract ⫺.15** ⫺.17** ⫺.16** ⫺.08 ⫺.10 ⫺.09 .02 .01 .02 .01 ⫺.02 ⫺.02
Autonomy .30** .29** .26** .25** .19** .18** .34** .34**
Contract ⫻ Autonomy .11** .10* .07 .01
R2 adjusted .10 .18 .20 .04 .10 .11 .07 .10 .11 .03 .13 .13
* **
p ⬍ .05. p ⬍ .01.
De Cuyper and De Witte
Autonomy and Workload Among Temporaries 451

related to workload (␤ ⫽ .18, p ⬍ .01) after controlling for autonomy (␤ ⫽

⫺.10, p ⬍ .05), occupational position (␤ ⫽ .11, p ⬍ .05), age (␤ ⫽ .02, ns),
gender (␤ ⫽ .07, ns), weekly working hours (␤ ⫽ .14, p ⬍ .01), living
condition (␤ ⫽ ⫺.04, ns), and education (␤ ⫽ .15, p ⬍ .05). Furthermore,
permanent employment was negatively related to job satisfaction and orga-
nizational commitment, and it was not significantly related to life satisfaction
and turnover (Table 4; Step 2). Accordingly, the second condition for
mediation was fulfilled for job satisfaction and organizational commitment.
Workload was negatively related to all outcomes (Table 4; Step 3), which
was in line with the third condition for mediation. Introducing workload,
however, did not reduce the effect of contract type in explaining job satis-
faction, which violates the last condition for mediation. Finally, the regres-
sion coefficient related to contract type was nonsignificant when introducing
workload to predict organizational commitment; however, the drop was not
substantial according to the Sobel test (z ⫽ ⫺2.04, p ⫽ .05).
Finally, we tested for interaction effects between contract type and
autonomy or between contract type and workload. Table 3 shows that
interaction terms were significant for job satisfaction and organizational
commitment but not for life satisfaction and performance. Table 4 shows a
significant interaction term only for life satisfaction. A next step is to
investigate the direction of the interaction effects. The responses of tempo-
raries were unaffected by the level of autonomy for both job satisfaction
(Mlow ⫽ 4.10; Mhigh ⫽ 4.21), t(184) ⫽ ⫺1.10, ns and organizational
commitment (Mlow ⫽ 3.67; Mhigh ⫽ 3.88), t(184) ⫽ ⫺1.98, ns. In contrast,
permanents low on autonomy (M ⫽ 3.71) were less satisfied with their job
compared with permanents high on autonomy (M ⫽ 4.17), t(364) ⫽ ⫺.6.63,
p ⬍ .01. Similarly, permanents low on autonomy (M ⫽ 3.51) were less
committed to their organizations as compared to permanents high on auton-
omy (M ⫽ 3.90), t(363) ⫽ ⫺6.48, p ⬍ .01. Finally, temporaries experiencing
low workload (M ⫽ 5.52) compared with those experiencing high workload
(M ⫽ 5.31) did not differ significantly on life satisfaction, t(184) ⫽ 1.19, ns.
However, workload significantly reduced life satisfaction among permanents
(Mlow ⫽ 5.59; Mhigh ⫽ 5.29), t(363) ⫽ 2.76, p ⬍ .01. A graphical illustration
of the interaction between contract type and autonomy for job satisfaction is
presented in Figure 2. The other interactions followed a similar pattern.

DISCUSSION

Summary and Implications

Initial research drew on job characteristic theory to formulate a media-

tion approach: Temporaries compared permanents were assumed to experi-
 452

Table 4. Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis: Interaction of Contract Type and Workload on Outcomes
Job satisfaction Organizational commitment Life satisfaction Performance
Variable Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4
* **
White collar .07 .08 .08 ⫺.00 .01 .01 ⫺.08 ⫺.06 ⫺.06 ⫺.12 ⫺.13 ⫺.13**
Age ⫺.01 ⫺.02 ⫺.02 .12* .11* .12* ⫺.11* ⫺.12* ⫺.13** .14** .14** .14**
Male ⫺.11* ⫺.10* ⫺.10* ⫺.03 ⫺.02 ⫺.02 ⫺.11* ⫺.10* ⫺.09* .00 ⫺.00 ⫺.00
Working hours ⫺.06 ⫺.05 ⫺.05 ⫺.07 ⫺.06 ⫺.07 ⫺.00 .02 .03 ⫺.02 ⫺.03 ⫺.03
Single ⫺.05 ⫺.06 ⫺.06 ⫺.08 ⫺.08 ⫺.08 ⫺.17** ⫺.17** ⫺.18** ⫺.03 ⫺.02 ⫺.02
Education ⫺.07 ⫺.04 ⫺.05 ⫺.06 ⫺.04 ⫺.03 .00 .03 .02 ⫺.00 ⫺.02 ⫺.02
Autonomy .32** .30** .30** .27** .26** .26** .21** .19** .19** .32** .34** .34**
Permanent contract ⫺.20** ⫺.17** ⫺.17** ⫺.12* ⫺.10 ⫺.09 ⫺.02 .01 ⫺.00 .01 ⫺.02 ⫺.01
Workload ⫺.18** ⫺.18** ⫺.12** ⫺.12* ⫺.19** ⫺.20** .13** .13**
Contract ⫻ Workload ⫺.01 .06 ⫺.13** .02
R2 adjusted .16 .18 .18 .09 .10 .10 .07 .10 .12 .12 .13 .13
* **
p ⬍ .05. p ⬍ .01.
De Cuyper and De Witte
Autonomy and Workload Among Temporaries 453

4.30

4.20 4.21
4.17

4.10
4.10
job satisfaction

4.00

3.90

3.80

3.70 3.71

3.60
low autonomy high autonomy
autonomy

Temporary permanent

Figure 2. The interaction between type of contract and autonomy for job satisfaction.

ence job characteristics that are usually deemed detrimental (e.g., low au-
tonomy). These, in turn, were expected to negatively affect temporaries’
responses. More recently, researchers suggest that positive aspects (e.g.,
lower job demands) may counterbalance the negative aspects of temporary
employment. This study addressed this issue by controlling for workload
when testing for mediation by autonomy and, similarly, by controlling for
autonomy when investigating mediation by workload. We found no evidence
for mediation by autonomy, because contract type was unrelated to auton-
omy. It is likely that temporaries and permanents performed similar jobs in
most departments, because most temporaries were hired to cope with in-
creased demands or to replace permanents. In contrast, permanent employ-
ment was associated with higher workload. Even in similar jobs, permanents
may perceive a higher workload because of greater supervision demands and
higher responsibility (George, 2003). If valid, this interpretation suggests that
permanents rather than temporaries may be vulnerable to stress based on job
characteristics in many samples. We did not, however, find evidence for
mediation by workload: Contract type was unrelated to life satisfaction and
turnover intention, and introducing workload did not substantially alter the
effect of contract type on job satisfaction and organizational commitment.
Furthermore, we investigated possible interactions between contract type
and both autonomy and workload. First, it was hypothesized that temporaries
might suffer less from low autonomy compared with permanents: Tempo-
raries may feel less entitled to high levels of autonomy, or they might not
454 De Cuyper and De Witte

expect high autonomy based on their transactional job design. Two of four
possible interaction terms turned out to be significant. The level of autonomy
did not affect temporaries’ responses, whereas low autonomy reduced per-
manents’ job satisfaction and organizational commitment. No such effects
were found for life satisfaction and performance. Finally, we did not expect
differential effects for employees’ reactions to workload. An acceptable
workload is at the core of all contractual arrangements, regardless of contract
type. Still, the interaction term added in explaining variance in life satisfac-
tion. Again, temporaries experiencing high workload did not differ from their
low workload colleagues, whereas high workload reduced life satisfaction
among permanents.
Although the balance of evidence supported the beneficial effects of
autonomy and the harmful effects of workload among permanents, their
impact on temporaries’ responses is much more complex. Autonomy did not
relate to temporaries’ short-term responses, such as job satisfaction and
organizational commitment, and workload did not relate to their life satis-
faction. It might be that autonomy is less important in shaping temporaries’
initial attitudes. It is difficult to evaluate the level of autonomy at the start of
an employment relationship or during short-term employment relationships,
as in the case of temporary employment: For example, socialization pro-
cesses or on-the-job training may reduce the level of autonomy, without
being associated with negative outcomes. Similarly, workload may not pre-
dict variables that are long-term in nature, simply because of the short-term
nature of the employment contract of temporaries. However, these explana-
tions are tentative and need to be addressed in future research. In any case,
we found evidence that low autonomy and high workload may not be overall
harmful; that is, they are not harmful for temporaries’ responses on at least
some important psychological outcomes.
These results may have important theoretical implications, as well as
implications for practitioners. For temporaries, autonomy might not be a
means to increase job satisfaction and organizational commitment in case of
high workload, as predicted by the Job Demand Control model. Similarly,
balancing low levels of autonomy by reducing workload may not increase
their life satisfaction. The complex pattern and the various interactions make
interventions difficult, especially for temporaries. For example, when orga-
nizations aim at short-term benefits, which is highly likely when hiring
temporaries, interventions focused upon workload may be more effective.
However, this is unlikely, because temporaries are often hired to cope with
production peaks. Furthermore, our results suggest that temporaries and
permanents have different perceptions on what constitutes a stressor; thus,
they may react differently to similar work situations. This may explain the
inconsistent findings on the psychological impact of being temporarily em-
ployed in previous studies and the dominantly nonsignificant findings in this
Autonomy and Workload Among Temporaries 455

study: Temporaries and permanents use different criteria to evaluate their

employment relationship and to shape their responses (De Cuyper & De
Witte, 2006). This process is likely to be influenced by their expectations.
This suggests that a good strategy to strengthen employees’ attitudes and
behaviors is to invest in clear communication concerning mutual expecta-
tions.

Limitations and Future Research

The most important limitation is the study’s cross-sectional design: To

understand the complex pattern of interactions, a longitudinal design seems
necessary. For example, it might be that temporaries perceive their contract
as a phase they are going through or as a way to find permanent employment.
During this phase, they might be less demanding in terms of autonomy. It
might be, however, that autonomy will become important when offered a
permanent contract. A longitudinal design among temporaries may, however,
be difficult to establish given their high mobility on both the internal and
external labor market.
Second, this study focused upon fixed-term contract workers, because
this category of temporaries covers a large majority of all Belgian temporary
workers. There are, however, various other temporary employment arrange-
ments, such as temporary agency work or on-call employment, which typi-
cally have shorter contract duration compared with fixed-term contract work-
ers (OECD, 2002). Future studies may investigate the perhaps critical
importance of contract duration in explaining results. Another sample limi-
tation is the rather large share of blue-collar workers. Results might have
been slightly different in a sample of mostly white-collar workers. In this
study, however, there was no difference between temporaries and permanents
concerning occupational status, suggesting that it is unlikely that results are
found because one contract type dominated one occupational group.
Third, the explained variance is low in most regression analyses. Ex-
plained variance might be raised by including various other employees’
perceptions, such as employees’ preferences for temporary employment or
job insecurity. The aim of this study, however, was to retest job character-
istics central to the Job Demand Control model.
Finally, we relied on employees’ perceptions to assess job characteristics
as well as psychological outcomes. However, the study by Fried and Ferris
(1987) suggests a moderate-to-good overlap between ratings of job charac-
teristics made by incumbents and those made by others. Furthermore, type of
contract is descriptive in nature, which is likely to reduce the threat of
common variance. Also, common variance problems may not be a major
456 De Cuyper and De Witte

concern when testing for interactions: Common method effects are likely to
attenuate rather than to strengthen interaction effects.

Concluding Remarks

Previous research has assumed similar reactions of temporaries and

permanents on stressors such as low autonomy and high workload. This study
has challenged this assumption by adding interaction terms. Some of the
interactions added in explaining employees’ responses on the outcome vari-
ables, suggesting that temporaries and permanents differ in their reactions to
comparable job characteristics. This may explain the inconsistent results of
being temporarily employed; however, the results of this study suggest that
temporaries’ responses do not as much depend on the level of specific job
characteristics as traditionally assumed. Rather, temporaries’ responses de-
pend on what they perceive as stressful, perhaps based on their expectations,
and on which outcomes (short term vs. long term) are considered.

REFERENCES

Abramis, D. (1994). Relationship of job stressors to job performance: Linear or an inverted-U?

Psychological Reports, 75, 547–558.
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting Interactions.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Aronsson, G., & Göransson, S. (1999). Permanent employment but not in a preferred occupa-
tion: Psychological and medical aspects, research implications. Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology, 4, 152–163.
Aronsson, G., Gustafsson, K., & Dallner, M. (2002). Work environment and health in different
types of temporary jobs. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 11,
151–175.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.
Beard, K. M., & Edwards, J. R. (1995). Employees at risk: Contingent work and the psycho-
logical experience of contingent workers. In C. I. Cooper & D. M. Rousseau (Eds.),
Trends in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 2 (pp. 109 –126). Oxford, England: John Wiley
& Sons.
Benach, J., Gimeno, D., & Benavides, F. G. (2002). Types of employment and health in the
European Union. Luxembourg: European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and
Work Conditions
Bernhard-Oettel, C., Sverke, M., & De Witte, H. (2005). Comparing alternative employment to
permanent full-time work: How do employment contract and perceived job conditions
relate to health complaints? Work and Stress, 19, 301–318.
Caballer, A., Silla, I., Gracia, F., & Ramos, J. (2005). Current evidence concerning employment
contracts and employee/organizational well-being among workers in Spain. In N. De
Autonomy and Workload Among Temporaries 457

Cuyper, K. Isaksson, & H. De Witte (Eds.), Employment contracts and well-being among
European workers (pp. 225–243). Aldershot, England: Ashgate.
Connelly, C. E., & Gallagher, D. G. (2004). Emerging trends in contingent work research.
Journal of Management, 30, 959 –983.
Conway, N., & Briner, R. B. (2002). Full-time versus part-time employees: Understanding the
link between work status, the psychological contract and attitudes. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 61, 279 –301.
Cook, J., & Wall, T. (1980). New work attitude measures of trust, organizational commitment
and personal need fulfillment. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 53, 39 –52.
Coyle-Shapiro, J. A. M., & Kessler, I. (2002). Contingent and non-contingent working in local
government: Contrasting psychological contracts. Public Administration, 80, 77–101.
De Cuyper, N., & De Witte, H. (2005). Job insecurity: Mediator or moderator of the relation-
ship between type of contract and various outcomes? South-African Journal of Industrial
Psychology, 31, 79 – 86.
De Cuyper, N. & De Witte, H. (2006). The impact of job insecurity and contract type on
attitudes, well-being and behavioral reports: A psychological contract perspective. Jour-
nal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 79, 395– 409.
De Cuyper, N., De Witte, H., & Isaksson, K. (2005). Temporary employment in Europe:
Conclusions. In N. De Cuyper, K. Isaksson, & H. De Witte (Eds.), Employment contracts
and well-being among European workers (pp. 225–243). Aldershot, England: Ashgate.
De Jong, J., & Schalk, R. (2005). Temporary employment in the Netherlands: Between
flexibility and security. In N. De Cuyper, K. Isaksson, & H. De Witte (Eds.), Employment
contracts and well-being among European workers (pp. 225–243). Aldershot, England:
Ashgate.
De Witte, H. (1999). Job insecurity and psychological well-being: Review of the literature and
exploration of some unresolved issues. European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, 8, 155–177.
De Witte, H., & Näswall, K. (2003). Objective versus subjective job insecurity: Consequences
of temporary work for job satisfaction and organizational commitment in four European
countries. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 24, 149 –188.
Fried, Y., & Ferris, G. R. (1987). The validity of the job characteristics model: A review and
meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 40, 287–322.
Gallagher, D. G., & Sverke, M. (2005). Contingent employment contracts: Are existing
employment theories still relevant? Economic and Industrial Democracy, 26, 181–203.
Galup, S., Saunders, C., Nelson, R. E., & Cerveny, R. (1997). The use of temporary staff in a
local government environment. Communication Research, 24, 698 –730.
Garcı́a-Montalvo, J., Peiró, J. M. & Soro Bonmatı́, A. (2003). Observatorio de la Inserción
Laboral, 1996–2002 [Labor insertion observatory, 1996 –2002]. Valencia, Spain: Funda-
ción Bancaja-Ivie.
George, E. (2003). External solutions and internal problems: The effects of employment
externalization on internal workers’ attitudes. Organization Science, 14, 386 – 402.
Goudswaard, A., & Andries, F. (2002). Employment status and working conditions. Luxem-
bourg: European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions
Isaksson, K., Bernhard, C., Claes, R., De Witte, H., Guest, D., Krausz, M., et al. (2003).
Employment contracts and psychological contracts in Europe. Results from a Pilotstudy.
SALTSA Report, 1. Stockholm: Sweden.
Johnson, J. L., & O’Leary-Kelly, A. M. (2003). The effects of psychological contract breach
and organizational cynicism: Not all social exchange violations are created equal. Journal
of Organizational Behavior, 24, 627– 647.
Karasek, R. A., & Theorell, T. (1990). Healthy work: Stress, productivity and the reconstruc-
tion of working life. New York: Basic Books.
458 De Cuyper and De Witte

Kinnunen, U., & Nätti, J. (1994). Job insecurity in Finland: Antecedents and consequences.
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 4, 297–321.
Lambert, L., Edwards, J. R., & Cable, D. M. (2003). Breach and fulfillment of the psychological
contract: A comparison of traditional and expanded views. Personnel Psychology, 56,
895–934.
Mauno, S., Kinnunen, U., Mäkikangas, A., & Nätti, J. (2005). Psychological consequences of
fixed-term employment and perceived job insecurity among health care staff. European
Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 14, 209 –238.
McDonald, D. J., & Makin, P. J. (2000). The psychological contract, organizational commit-
ment and job satisfaction of temporary staff. Leadership and Organizational Development
Journal, 21, 84 –91.
McLean Parks, J., Kidder, D. L., & Gallagher, D. G. (1998). Fitting square pegs into round
holes: Mapping the domain of contingent work arrangements onto the psychological
contract. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 697–730.
Millward, L. J., & Hopkins, L. (1998). Psychological contracts, organizational and job com-
mitment. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28, 1530 –1556.
Näswall, K., & De Witte, H. (2003). Who feels insecure in Europe? Predicting job insecurity
from background variables. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 24, 189 –215.
OECD. (2002). Employment outlook. Paris: Organization for Economic Co-operation and
Development.
Parker, S. K., Griffin, M. A., Sprigg, C. A., & Wall, T. A. (2002). Effect of temporary contracts
on perceived work characteristics and job strain: A longitudinal study. Personnel Psy-
chology, 55, 689 –717.
Pearce, J. L. (1993). Toward an organizational behavior of contract laborers: Their psycho-
logical involvement and effects on employee co-workers. Academy of Management
Journal, 36, 1082–1096.
Polivka, A. E., & Nardone, T. (1989). On the definition of contingent work. Monthly Labor
Review, 112(12), 9 –16.
Price, J. (1997). Handbook of organizational measurement. International Journal of Manpower,
18, 301–558.
Rogers, J. K. (1995). Just a temp. Experience and structure of alienation in temporary clerical
employment. Work and Occupations, 22, 137–166.
Rosenthal, P., Guest, D., & Peccei, R. (1996). Gender difference in managers’ explanation for
their work performance: A study in two organizations. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 69, 145–151.
Rousseau, D. M. (1995). Psychological contracts in organizations: Understanding written and
unwritten agreements. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Saloniemi, A., Virtanen, P., & Vahtera, J. (2004). The work environment in fixed-term jobs:
Are poor psychosocial conditions inevitable? Work, Employment and Society, 18, 193–
208.
Semmer, N. K., Zapf, D., & Dunckel, H. (1999). Instrument zur Stressbezogenen Tätigkeit-
sanalyse [Instrument for stress-related job analysis]. In H. Dunckel (Ed.), Handbuch
psychologischer Arbeitsanalyseverfahren (pp. 179 –204). Zürich: Vdf Hoch Schulverlag.
Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic intervals for indirect effects in structural equations models. In
S. Leinhart (Ed.), Sociological Methodology, 7, 422– 445.
Sparks, K., Faragher, B., & Cooper, C. L. (2001). Well-being and occupational health in the
21st century workplace. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74,
489 –509.
Sverke, M., Gallagher, D. G., & Hellgren, J. (2000). Alternative work arrangements: Job stress,
well-being, and work attitudes among employees with different employment contracts. In
K. Isaksson, L. Hogstedt, C. Eriksson, & T. Theorell (Eds.), Health effects of the new
labour market (pp. 145–167). New York: Plenum Press.
 Autonomy and Workload Among Temporaries 459

Sverke, M., Hellgren, J., & Näswall, K. (2002). No security: A meta-analysis and review of job
insecurity and its consequences. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 7, 242–264.
Theorell, T., & Karasek, R. A. (1996). Current issues relating to psychosocial job strain and
cardiovascular disease research. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 1, 9 –26.
Van Breukelen, W., & Allegro, J. (2000). Effecten van nieuwe vormen van flexibilisering van
de arbeid. Een onderzoek in de logistieke sector [Effects of labour flexibility. A study in
the sector of logistics]. Gedrag and Organisatie, 13, 107–125.
Van der Doef, M., & Maes, S. (1999). The job demand-control (-support) model and psycho-
logical well-being: A review of 20 years of empirical research. Work and Stress, 13,
87–114.
Van Dyne, L., & Ang, S. (1998). Organizational citizenship behavior of contingent workers in
Singapore. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 692–703.
Virtanen, J., Vahtera, M., Kivimäki, J., Pentii, J. F., & Ferrie, J. (2002). Employment security
and health. Journal of Epidemiological Community Health, 56, 569 –574.
Warr, P. (1994). A conceptual framework for the study of work and mental health. Work &
Stress, 8, 84 –97.

View publication stats