Research Group Work, Organisational and Personnel Psychology, KU Leuven, 3000 Leuven, Belgium.
Department of Human Sciences, University of Verona, 37129 Verona, Italy.
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2023 Mar 27;20(7):5280. doi: 10.3390/ijerph20075280.
Radical transformations in the current work model induce qualitative job insecurity (i.e., a threat to job characteristics) and strengthen quantitative job insecurity (i.e., a threat to job loss). Both dimensions are separate yet interdependent work stressors. Although organisational changes are often the core source for both types of job insecurity, it is predominantly a subjective experience-individual perception ultimately determines the risk and the consequences of these threats. So far, the between-person analysis suggests that the relationship between the two dimensions is in both directions. However, it is not clear whether these associations also reflect within-person processes. This study proposes and tests the reciprocal relationship between quantitative and qualitative job insecurity at the within-person level. We employed a multiple indicator random-intercept cross-lagged panel model (RI-CLPM) to test these associations within-person while controlling for between-person differences. We used three-wave longitudinal data (6 months' time lag) collected from a Belgian working population (N = 3694). The results suggest a unidirectional relationship (from quantitative to qualitative job insecurity). Furthermore, the results reveal significant within-person carry-over effects of quantitative job insecurity but not for qualitative job insecurity. Overall, these results suggest that a change in the experience of threats to job loss (i.e., higher-than-usual quantitative job insecurity) not only anticipates higher-than-usual threats to job loss (autoregressive paths) but also higher-than-usual threats to job characteristics (i.e., qualitative job insecurity), six months later. This study contributes to the ongoing discussion on how job insecurity dimensions influence each other. Given these results and the continuous changes to how we work, we call for further research to better understand the within-person processes of job insecurity development.
当前工作模式的根本性转变会导致定性工作不安全感(即工作特性受到威胁)和增强定量工作不安全感(即失业受到威胁)。这两个维度是相互独立但又相互关联的工作压力源。尽管组织变革通常是这两种类型工作不安全感的核心来源,但它主要是一种主观体验——个人感知最终决定了这些威胁的风险和后果。到目前为止,个体间分析表明这两个维度之间存在双向关系。然而,目前尚不清楚这些关联是否也反映了个体内的过程。本研究提出并检验了个体内定量和定性工作不安全感之间的互惠关系。我们采用多指标随机截距交叉滞后面板模型(RI-CLPM)来检验个体内的这些关联,同时控制个体间差异。我们使用了来自比利时工作人群的三波纵向数据(6 个月的时间滞后)(N=3694)。结果表明存在单向关系(从定量工作不安全感到定性工作不安全感)。此外,结果还揭示了定量工作不安全感的个体内持续效应显著,但定性工作不安全感没有。总体而言,这些结果表明,工作失业威胁(即高于通常的定量工作不安全感)体验的变化不仅预期了更高的失业威胁(自回归路径),而且还预期了更高的工作特性威胁(即定性工作不安全感),六个月后更是如此。本研究为正在进行的关于工作不安全感维度如何相互影响的讨论做出了贡献。鉴于这些结果和我们工作方式的持续变化,我们呼吁进一步研究,以更好地了解工作不安全感发展的个体内过程。