Does Losing Temporary Workers Matter? The Effects of Planned Turnover on Replacements and Unit Performance

Stefano, Federica De; Bonet, Rocío; Camuffo, Arnaldo

doi:10.5465/amj.2017.0291

Cited by 45 publications

(44 citation statements)

References 65 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, organizations often implement temporary worker arrangements to improve organizational flexibility and reduce costs (Foote, 2004; Plomp et al, 2019), and although this type of structure can benefit the team when roles are bounded and stable (Valentine & Edmondson, 2014), individuals tend to perceive their temporary teammates as less likely to engage in extra-role behavior (Ang & Slaughter, 2001). Furthermore, high levels of temporary teammate turnover can reduce team performance, particularly when temporary teammates are replaced by novice organizational members (De Stefano et al, 2019). Thus, temporary turnover arrangements appear to do more harm than good, particularly for teams with less stable and bounded team roles.…”

Section: Review and Synthesis Of Extant Research On Team Membership Cmentioning

confidence: 99%

Team Membership Change “Events”: A Review and Reconceptualization

Trainer

Jones

Pendergraft

et al. 2020

Group & Organization Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Driven by views of teams as dynamic systems with permeable boundaries, scholars are increasingly seeking to better understand how team membership changes (i.e., team members joining and/or leaving) shape the functioning and performance of organizational teams. However, empirical studies of team membership change appear to be progressing in three largely independent directions as researchers consider: (a) how newcomers impact and are impacted by the teams they join; (b) how teams adapt to member departures; or (c) how teams function under conditions of high membership fluidity, with little theoretical integration or consensus across these three areas. To accelerate an integrative stream of research on team membership change, we advance a conceptual framework which depicts each team membership change as a discrete team-level “event” which shapes team functioning to the extent to which it is “novel,” “disruptive,” and “critical” for the team. We use this framework to guide our review and synthesis of empirical studies of team membership change published over the past 20 years. Our review reveals numerous factors, across conceptual levels of the organization, that determine the strength (i.e., novelty, disruptiveness, criticality) of a team membership change event and, consequently, its impact on team functioning and performance. In closing, we provide propositions for future research that integrate a multilevel, event-based perspective of team membership change and demonstrate how team membership change events may impact organizational systems over time and across levels of observation.

show abstract

Section: Review and Synthesis Of Extant Research On Team Membership Cmentioning

confidence: 99%

Team Membership Change “Events”: A Review and Reconceptualization

Trainer

Jones

Pendergraft

et al. 2020

Group & Organization Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…SHRM scholars, by contrast, have analyzed the employer’s choice between permanent contracts and CWAs as a tradeoff between 1) the advantages highlighted by the ER literature, and 2) the potential costs for the organization attributable to the employer’s lack of full control over the transient employment relationship. Using CWAs implies higher transaction costs for the company (Baron and Kreps 1999), and the short-term orientation in the employment relationship increases turnover, leading to work process disruption and the loss of knowledge and training investment (Kesavan, Staats, and Gilland 2014; De Stefano, Bonet, and Camuffo 2019). These issues are particularly salient for strategically critical, core tasks.…”

Section: Costs and Control In The Contingent Employment Relationshipmentioning

confidence: 99%

How Do Employers Choose between Types of Contingent Work? Costs, Control, and Institutional Toying

Benassi¹,

Kornelakis

2020

ILR Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The increasing variety of contingent work raises the question of how employers choose between various types of contractual arrangements. The authors review relevant Employment Relations and Strategic HRM literature and distinguish four types of contingent contracts along the dimensions of costs and control. They argue that employers are making choices based on cost and control constraints but are able to reshape these constraints through “institutional toying.” Their case study of a German manufacturing plant and R&D center illustrates the mechanisms of institutional toying, which are consistent with the literature on institutional loopholes and exit options. The article develops propositions that explain the diversity of contingent work arrangements and show how toying strategies enlarge the range of options available to employers.

show abstract

“…Increased competition prompts organizations to increasingly opt for contract employment relations with their employees. Hybrid employment in organizations is becoming a prevailing phenomenon ( Johnson and Ashforth, 2008 ; Cappelli and Keller, 2013 ; De Jong et al, 2018 ; Stefano et al, 2018 ), which questions whether the effects of job security on discretionary behaviors are different across employment status, and begs examining why. Although previous research has demonstrated that the relationship between job security and OCBs could be different across employment status ( Liu et al, 2017 ), it remains unclear why job security motivates contract employees to engage in more or less OCB compared to permanent employees.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Job Security and Organizational Citizenship Behaviors in Chinese Hybrid Employment Context: Organizational Identification Versus Psychological Contract Breach Perspective Differences Across Employment Status

Liu

et al. 2021

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The goal of the present research was to identify the mechanism through which job security exerts its different effects on organizational citizenship behaviors (OCB) among contract and permanent employees from social identity and social exchange perspectives. Our research suggests two distinct, yet related explanatory mechanisms: organizational identification and psychological contract breach, to extend the job security literature by examining whether psychological contract breach and organization identity complement each other and explaining the mechanism of different behaviors response to job security across employment status. Data were collected from 211 Chinese employees and 61 supervisory ratings of OCBs. Our results showed that relative to psychological contract breach, organizational identification plays a stronger mediating role in the association between job security and OCBs. Evidence from multi-group analyses also suggested employment status moderated the mediation mechanism of organizational identification between job security and OCB. Implications for job security and hybrid employment management are discussed.

show abstract

Does Losing Temporary Workers Matter? The Effects of Planned Turnover on Replacements and Unit Performance

Cited by 45 publications

References 65 publications

Team Membership Change “Events”: A Review and Reconceptualization

Team Membership Change “Events”: A Review and Reconceptualization

How Do Employers Choose between Types of Contingent Work? Costs, Control, and Institutional Toying

Job Security and Organizational Citizenship Behaviors in Chinese Hybrid Employment Context: Organizational Identification Versus Psychological Contract Breach Perspective Differences Across Employment Status

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About