Acting Proactively to Manage Job Insecurity: How Worrying About the Future of One’s Job May Obstruct Future-Focused Thinking and Behavior

Abstract

An increasing number of people experience insecurity about the future of their job, making it more important than ever to manage this insecurity. While previous research suggests that proactive coping is a promising way to alleviate job insecurity, we suggest that, paradoxically, it may be particularly difficult to act proactively when feeling emotionally distressed about the future of one’s job. Drawing on the principle of resource scarcity and the Conservation of Resources theory, we propose that affective job insecurity ignites a scarcity mindset that inhibits workers’ future focus and cognitive functioning, thereby undermining proactive career behavior. Additionally, we examine whether income adequacy can compensate for these negative consequences of job insecurity. Results of a three-wave survey study among 108 self-employed professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic showed that initial affective job insecurity was negatively related to cognitive functioning but unrelated to future focus. Yet, the latter relationship was moderated by income adequacy: affective job insecurity was positively related to future focus when participants reported high income adequacy. In turn, future focus was positively related to proactive career behavior, which was subsequently related to lower cognitive job insecurity. Thus, while replicating the finding that workers can proactively manage their cognitive job insecurity, we also showed that initial affective job insecurity may obstruct people’s cognitive functioning. We discuss how our results signal a Matthew effect, in which job insecure people with sufficient means are able to look ahead and proactively build resources to change their career, while job insecure people with insufficient means may fall behind.

Job Insecurity and Employees’ Taking Charge Behaviors: Testing a Moderated Mediation Model

“…Accordingly, examining its influence on taking charge can enrich our understanding of the antecedents of proactive behaviors by, to some extent, incorporating the dimension of “time.” Our findings are consistent with the previous literature that explored the impact of job insecurity on proactive behaviors. For example, Koen and van Bezouuw (2021) demonstrated that people’s worry about job security undermined their proactive career behavior [ 49 ]. Probst et al (2007) found that job insecurity had a detrimental impact on employees’ creativity [ 50 ].…”

Job insecurity and mental health

“…If, on the other hand, part of the effect is attributable to reverse causality, the causal effect of job insecurity on mental health must be smaller than the effect that was found. Such a reverse effect, an effect of mental health on perceived job insecurity, is not inconceivable, as perceived job insecurity appears malleable under interventions that affect the sense of control but otherwise do not change the objective likelihood of job loss (Koen & Parker, 2020;Koen & Van Bezouw, 2021). The sample composition may further contribute to an overstatement of the average effect, as employees on a temporary contract were underrepresented in the Dutch sample and they appear less distressed by job insecurity than employees on permanent contracts.…”

“…Glaub et al, 2014 andStrauss &Parker, 2018). A requirement for such proactive career behaviour appears to be income adequacy (Koen & Van Bezouw, 2021); as Bourdieu (1998) noted, precarity renders rational anticipation impossible. So in order to promote proactive behaviours, income adequacy concerns should be met first.…”

“…Als daarentegen een deel van het effect toe te schrijven zou zijn aan omgekeerde causaliteit, dan moet het causale effect van baanonzekerheid op de mentale gezondheid kleiner zijn dan het gevonden effect. Een dergelijk omgekeerd effect, een effect van mentale gezondheid op baanonzekerheid, is niet ondenkbaar, aangezien baanonzekerheid kneedbaar lijkt onder interventies die het gevoel van controle beïnvloeden, maar overigens de objectieve kans op baanverlies niet veranderen (Koen & Parker, 2020;Koen & Van Bezouw, 2021). De samenstelling van de steekproef kan verder bijdragen aan een overschatting van het gemiddelde effect, aangezien werknemers met een tijdelijk contract ondervertegenwoordigd zijn in de Nederlandse steekproef en zij minder lijken te lijden onder baanonzekerheid dan werknemers met een vast contract.…”

“…Glaub et al, 2014en Strauss & Parker, 2018. Een vereiste voor dergelijk proactief loopbaangedrag blijkt toereikendheid van het inkomen te zijn (Koen & Van Bezouw, 2021); zoals Bourdieu (1998) opmerkte, maakt precariteit rationele anticipatie onmogelijk. Dus om proactief gedrag te bevorderen, moeten eerst eventuele zorgen over de toereikendheid van het inkomen worden weggenomen.…”