Psychological contract profiles among permanent and temporary agency workers

Abstract

Purpose – Based on the psychological contract (PC) theory, the purpose of this paper is to identify PC profiles, differentiating between permanent and temporary agency workers (TAW). Moreover, the authors analyzed whether different profiles presented different levels of work engagement. Design/methodology/approach – A cross-sectional survey data analysis of 2,867 workers, of whom 1,046 were TAW, was analyzed using latent profile analyses. Findings – Four PC profiles were identified, which differed quantitatively in terms of the overall dimension levels (i.e. balanced, relational and transactional) for PC (i.e. content and fulfillment). ANCOVAs showed that the relational/balanced dominant and transactional dominant profiles presented similar engagement levels for TAW, but for permanent workers the former profile showed higher engagement than the latter. However, for both permanent and TAW the fulfillment profile showed higher engagement than the unfulfillment profile. Research limitations/implications – The cross-sectional design and the reliance on self-report measures are the limitations of this study, although no causality was claimed and method biases were controlled. Practical implications – Actions that increase PC fulfillment positively affect the employment relationship of TAW with the client organization. Originality/value – Few studies have addressed PC typologies. Furthermore, most studies have focussed on temporary workers, but not on TAW and their contract with the client organization. Finally, this study emphasizes the crucial role played by the PC in the levels of work engagement.

Managing motivation in the contact center: The employment relationship of outsourcing and temporary agency workers

“…Overall, TAW are legally recruited and hired by the staffing agency and used by the client to (a) temporarily replace permanent workers; (b) develop specific projects; or (c) as a way of adjusting staff levels in accordance with market demands (Chambel et al, 2016). Additionally, the majority of TAW do not voluntary choose this kind of arrangement (De Cuyper and De Witte, 2008; Lopes and Chambel, 2014).…”

Examining the Nature and Effects of Psychological Contract: Case Study of an Indian Organization

“…A psychological contract is defined as employees’ beliefs about what they are entitled to receive, or should receive, based on perceived promises made by the organization (Morrison & Robinson, ). As one of the main constructs of the employment relationship, it has received considerable research attention in the past two and a half decades (Arshad, Tetrick, & Tetrick, ; Chambel et al, ; Lub, Bal, Blomme, & Schalk, ) because employment relationships are currently undergoing a period of dramatic change, and meeting employees’ expectations remains a challenge for most organizations (Alcover, Rico, Turnley, & Bolino, ; Raja & Johns, ; Robinson, ; Robinson & Rousseau, ; Suazo, Martínez, & Sandoval, ; Suazo, Turnley, & Mai, ). Extensive empirical evidence suggests that a psychological contract consistently predicts work‐related attitudes and behaviors (Katou & Budhwar, ; Lapointe, Vandenberghe, & Boudrias, ; Low, Bordia, & Bordia, ; Zhao, Wayne, Glibkowski, & Bravo, ).…”

Outsiders Looking in: Do Non-permanent Workers Whistleblow?

“…Extant literature suggests non-contingent and contingent employees differ on a number of workplace environment factors (Chung, 2019;Goni-Legaz and Ollo-Lopez, 2017;Chambel et al 2016;Morf et al 2014;Rigotti et al 2009;Chambel and Fontinha, 2009;Feather and Rauter, 2004). We extend this line of research by examining whether these differences decrease whistleblowing amongst contingent employees.…”

“…These include feelings of powerlessness (Karkoulian et al, 2013) and job insecurity (Probst et al, 2018). Contingent workers may also struggle with a sense of divided loyalties between their employer and the organization at which they perform work (Liden et al, 2003;Barringer and Sturman, 1998), which in turn affects the psychological contracts with both of these entities (Chambel et al, 2016;Morf et al, 2014). Contingent workers also have the difficult decision of whether or not to engage in organizational citizenship behaviors (Feather and Rauter, 2004;Van Dyne and Ang, 1998).…”