Lena Låstad, Erik Berntson, Katharina Näswall, Petra Lindfors and Magnus Sverke
The purpose of this paper is to develop and validate a measure of job insecurity climate by: first, testing whether job insecurity climate and individual job insecurity are two…
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to develop and validate a measure of job insecurity climate by: first, testing whether job insecurity climate and individual job insecurity are two separate constructs; and second, investigating the relative importance of individual job insecurity and job insecurity climate in predicting work-related and health-related outcomes.
Design/methodology/approach
Data were collected by questionnaires in a simple stratified random sample of 1,380 white-collar workers in Sweden. The response rate was 56 percent.
Findings
Confirmatory factor analyses showed that job insecurity climate was distinct from individual job insecurity. Four separate ridge regression analyses showed that qualitative job insecurity climate was a significant predictor of demands, work-family conflict, psychological distress, and poor self-rated health and that quantitative job insecurity climate predicted demands and work-family conflict.
Research limitations/implications
The study is based on self-reports, which may involve common method bias. The cross-sectional study design limits the possibility to make causal inferences regarding the relationship between job insecurity climate and outcomes.
Practical implications
Future studies may consider measuring job insecurity climate in line with a referent-shift model. Work environment surveys in organizations that include measures of individual job insecurity and job insecurity climate can provide practitioners with a fuller picture of the psychosocial work environment.
Originality/value
The present study adds to previous research by introducing a new approach to measuring and conceptualizing job insecurity climate.
Details
Keywords
Vilde Hoff Bernstrøm, Ida Drange and Svenn-Erik Mamelund
Employability has been suggested as an alternative to job security in response to more flexible work arrangements, arguing that the important question for employees is no longer…
Abstract
Purpose
Employability has been suggested as an alternative to job security in response to more flexible work arrangements, arguing that the important question for employees is no longer the security of their current job, but their employment security in the labour market. The purpose of this paper is to test two core assumptions of this argument: first, is employability associated with a lower preference for job security? And second, are individuals with lower job security in fact compensated with higher employability? Both assumptions have received criticism in recent literature. The focus is on employees’ perceived basic and aspiring employability. The former refers to employees’ expectations of remaining in employment and the latter to expectations of upward mobility.
Design/methodology/approach
The data used in the analysis were nationally representative Norwegian survey data from 12,945 employees (2009–2013).
Findings
Employees with higher aspiring employability and education levels have a significantly lower preference for job security, but this is not the case for employees with higher basic employability. Additionally, while employees with lower job security have higher aspiring employability, they have lower basic employability and receive less employer-supported training.
Originality/value
The current paper is the first to investigate how employability relates to the employees’ own preference for job security. In line with critics of the employability argument, the results support that job security continues to be an important protection mechanism. Moreover, employees with low job security lose out twice as employers also invest less in their training and future employability.