1 / 14

Saija Mauno, University of Jyväskylä Anne Mäkikangas, University of Jyväskylä

Saija Mauno, University of Jyväskylä Anne Mäkikangas, University of Jyväskylä Ulla Kinnunen, University of Tampere FINLAND. The effects of long-term temporary work compared to permanent work on perceived work characteristics and well-being: A three-wave study. TempWell. EUROCIETT MEETING

apu
Download Presentation

Saija Mauno, University of Jyväskylä Anne Mäkikangas, University of Jyväskylä

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Saija Mauno, University of Jyväskylä Anne Mäkikangas, University of Jyväskylä Ulla Kinnunen, University of Tampere FINLAND The effects of long-term temporary work compared to permanent work on perceived work characteristics and well-being: A three-wave study TempWell EUROCIETT MEETING LEUVEN, 27.10-28.10. 2011

  2. Background We lack information whether long-term temporary work has negative effects on employees’ work experiences and well-being When temporary job contract becomes longer it might have negative effects on employees’ in line with the ’trap-hypothesis’ Eearlier longitudinal studies are few and partly consistent with this reasoning (see Kompier et al. 2009; Mauno et al. 2011; Parker et al. 2002) In Finland, also long-term temporary contracts are possible, and do exist in certain fields, providing a good starting point to examine their long-term effects

  3. Aim and Hypothesis To investigate whether long-term temporary employees report negative, or even positive, changes in their perceived work characteristics and well-being over time Hypothesis: their experiences on work characteristics and well-being will become more negative over time (trap-view) Work characteristics: workload, insecurity, control, co-worker support & supervisory justice Well-being indicators: vigor at work, job satisfaction, job exhaustion, stress symptoms & life satisfaction Long-term temporary employees, LTT-group, had the fixed-term contract at minimum for 3 years Long-term permanent, LTP-group, employees formed the comparison group

  4. Participants • On-going research project ”Are temporary workers a disadvantaged group?”/Academy of Finland • For more, see De Cuyper et al. 2011; Kinnunen et al. 2011; Kirves et al. 2011; Mauno et al. 2011 • Participants represented Finnish university employees from two rather similar universities • Temporary contracts are very common in Finnish universities (50-60%) • On-line questionnaire was filled out in three waves • 2008=T1, 2009=T2, 2010=T3 • Altogether 926 participants in all three waves • Of them, 318 were in LTT-group and 297 in LTP-group: N = 615 (66% of all T1, T2, T3 respondents)

  5. Group Differences at T1 in Backgrounds * The difference is statistically significant. Typical/higher for this group.

  6. Measures

  7. Results on Group Differences for Work Characteristics & Well-being Analysis of Variance for Repeated Measures. Adjusted for gender, education and age Note. T=temporary employees, P=Permanent employees

  8. Figure 1: Job control

  9. Figure 2: Co-workersupport

  10. Figure 3: Justice

  11. Conclusions (1) • No decrease among LTT or LTP workers in well-being • Are some mediators involved, e.g., job characteristics? • Poorer work characteristics may cause poorer well-being • LTT workers reported a decrease in co-worker support and supervisoryjustice over time • Temporary workers have less job resources when temporary contract is getting a ’more permanent’ arrangement • An increase in support at T2 among LTP workers • Organizational changes in were launched at T2 • LTT workers in worse position in organizational changes?

  12. Conclusions (2) • A very modest decrease in job control among LTT workers, whereas LTP workers showed a very modest increase over time • LTT workers reported higher job control compared to LTP workers at each time point (strong main effect) • Position might matter: LTP workers are in high-status jobs, i.e., as professors, lecturers, senior researchers, implying more workload but also less job control • Strong main effect for workload (P > T) at T1, T2, T3 • LTT work means more perceived job insecurity • Very strong main effect at T1, T2, T3 (T > P) • Implications for well-being? Job insecurity is a severe stressor

  13. To Be Examined... • Does poorer work characteristics operate as mediators between contract type and well-being? • More negative changes found in work characteristics • See the findings by Kompier et al. 2009; Mauno et al. 2011 • Does age or earlier temporary career line moderate the relationships? • Older LTT workers -> more negative perceptions? • Earlier temporary working career -> more negative perceptions? • Contracttransitions were not yet investigated • 34% of the respondents were excluded from this study • Contract transitions complex in multi-wave data (small groups)

  14. Thanks for your attention! TempWell This study was supported by the Academy of Finland (grant numbers 124360, 218260) ask more: saija.mauno@jyu.fi

More Related