Mutual expectations: a study of the three‐way relationship between employment agencies, their client organisations and white‐collar agency ‘temps’

Abstract

This paper examines the mutual expectations of employment agencies, the temporary workers who are placed by them and the client or host companies with whom they are placed. It considers the ambiguities and complexities inherent in the psychological contracts of agency temps, pointing to positive dimensions of the agency relationship with temps coupled with a tough transactional regime. In periods of uncertainty agency temping provided individuals with an illusion of freedom and control.

The psychological impact of agency worker utilisation

“…After applying the concept of the psychological contract to the three parties involved in the employment of agency workers, Claes (2005) concluded that temporary employment agencies and the third party employers perceived their promises made and kept to be more favourable than the individual agency workers did. Comparisons can be drawn with the findings of Druker and Stanworth (2004), as they also suggested the existence of a discrepancy between the high expectations of third party employers and the limited rewards they offer individual agency workers. This may be a result of the typical mark-up caused by the additional fee of the agency, as the worker will not receive the entire fee charged for their services.…”

“…Research into the motives possessed by individuals employed as agency workers has cited the desire for flexible working arrangements as a strong attraction. Druker and Stanworth's (2004) sample of forty-two agency workers presented a variety of different reasons for engaging the services of a temporary employment agency. Among the sample were first-time jobbers who enjoyed the flexibility, people who were planning, engaged in, or who had recently returned from long-haul travel, and people who were seeking, or had just been offered, permanent employment.…”

“…For some, temporary agency work provides individuals with fast access to flexible and wide-ranging types of employment that demands fewer obligations and reduced responsibility to the employer. For critics, it represents an inferior and poorly-protected form of work that encompasses low pay (Druker & Stanworth, 2004), poor treatment (Hall, 2006), and little chance for development (Wiens-Tuers & Hill, 2002).…”

“…Findings from qualitative interviews performed by Druker and Stanworth (2004) included a number of reported experiences of participants being brutally axed by the third party employer. Forde and Slater (2006) reported similar findings during their study into UK agency employment, as their agency worker participants exhibited higher levels of anxiety about their positions.…”

The changing world of the temporary worker: the potential HR impact of legislation

“…Nevertheless, an implication for human resource managers was that the induction of temporary workers needed to be carried out by the direct employer (Druker and Stanworth, 2004;Feldman et al, 1994;Feldman, Doerpinghaus and Turnley, 1995;Foote and Folta, 2002;Koh and Yer, 2000;Ward et al, 2001). Druker and Stanworth (2004) suggested that employers of agency workers wanted to conduct the minimum amount of induction as possible and that employers perceived a 'good temp' as someone who could be 'fitted in' quickly. However in the US, Feldman et al (1995) found that in a sample of 186 agency workers it was often reported that no instruction about the job or duties were given.…”