آیا شکل استخدام اختلاف ایجاد می کند ؟ تعهد کارگران سنتی ، موقتی ، و خود اشتغالی

Increasing change in the labor market has produced new forms of employment. A growing number of people have temporary jobs or are self-employed freelancers. The aim of our study is to address these changes by introducing commitment to the form of employment as a new focus in commitment. In addition, we compare organizational commitment under conditions of these forms of employment to traditional form of employment. The study is based on several samples representing conventional and new forms of employment (overall N = 494). The results indicate that commitment to the form of employment explains variance of organizational outcomes over and above organizational commitment. Generally, commitment to the form of employment reflects an important attitude to the work situation besides commitment to the organization or occupation. The results are discussed in the light of labor market trends.

A tight job market and changes in the labor market, in general, have fostered ‘new’ forms of employment such as temporary work, multiple-employment, and self-employment. Although these have existed for a considerable time they can be regarded as ‘new’ in terms of both increasing prevalence and relevance for the job market. An increasing number of employees hold jobs that differ from traditional long-term employment characterized by open-ended employment. In contrast to earlier patterns, temporary or contingent work has expanded beyond clerical or unskilled work (Gallagher & McLean Parks, 2001). Though there have always been differences, the contract of a ‘classic’ employment offered relatively high degrees of security, continuity, and dependability for employees and organizations. Although there has been increased flexibility in economies such as USA, in others, for example Germany, legal regulations have protected the unlimited classic employment. While there are some studies that focus on organizational commitment of temporary workers (e.g., Connelly et al., 2007, Coyle-Shapiro and Kessler, 2002, Coyle-Shapiro and Morrow, 2006, Guest, 2004 and Sverke et al., 1999), only a few reflect on the commitment to new forms of employment (Torka, 2004). Thus, the level of commitment in other but classic forms of employment remains unclear. Gallagher and McLean Parks (2001, p. 204) state, “that the growth of ‘contingent’ or ‘alternative’ forms of work relationships highlights the need for researchers to examine work-related commitments outside of the traditional employer-employee framework.” Thus, the aim of this study is to contribute to the body of research of commitment by trying to close this gap. Our study has two aims: First, we want to examine whether commitment to the form of employment is able to explain outcome variables over and above organizational and occupational commitment. Second, we compare the patterns of commitment in new forms of employment (temporary work, self-employed freelancers) to the patterns of classic employees (i.e., permanent, full-time contracts).

One major concern of our study was to address the question of the meaning of commitment to the form of employment. The results of the factor analyses and systematic differences in appraisal provide evidence that employees distinguished between the foci of commitment no matter in which form of employment they work. In all forms of employment, our participants produced meaningful differences in their evaluation of their commitment to the organization and their commitment to their form of employment. This emphasizes that besides other foci of commitment, it is justified to regard the newly-introduced commitment to the work form as a separate construct. Our results even imply that employees are more committed to their status as classic employees than to their organization or even occupation. Consequently, Irving et al.’s (1997) proposition that occupational commitment might escalate in importance as a compensation for the loss of organizational commitment is extended. This aspect has been neglected in prior research and deserves further investigation, particularly as our regression analysis has shown that commitment to the form of employment influences outcomes. This suggests that, employees would be ready to accept compromises concerning the organization or occupation if they could continue being long-termed employed. However, this relatively high commitment to the form of employment might not be surprising in the face of a tight job market in Germany. Though this seems to be a reasonable explanation for our results, we even cannot be sure if a tight job market is the critical factor, as only cross-sectional data are available by now. However, comparisons to other countries with lower unemployment rates could be interesting. Alternatively, subjective and objective variables that reflect the perception of the job market situation should be controlled systematically. Finally, more knowledge concerning consequences of commitment to the form of employment is required. Though we could report some correlations that illustrate the meaning of commitment to the form of employment, relationships to other outcome variables such as turnover intentions have to be investigated more deeply. Nevertheless, our findings support the assumption that commitment to the form of employment is important for the understanding of organizational behavior and attitudes. A second central question of our research was to investigate systematic differences in commitment between different forms of employment (Gallagher & McLean Parks, 2001). Generally, it was argued that, except for self-employment, commitment in new forms of employment (e.g., temporary work) is not as high as under traditional conditions. One can assume that commitment decreases if the social contract of long-term employment in return of loyalty is broken (Morrison & Robinson, 1997). Though alternative arguments could be discussed, for example, that new forms might provide a better fit with individual life circumstances; we doubt that employees prefer these new forms to classic employment. This contrasts a recent study on temp work satisfaction (Torka & Schyns, 2007) conducted in the Netherlands, indicating that many temporary workers do in fact like their work form (see also results by Guest & Clinton, 2006). However, given the differences in the labor market between Germany and the Netherlands (or the UK, Guest & Clinton, 2006), we assume that due to a tight labor market in Germany, people are forced into temporary work rather than prefer this employment form. The underlying argument is that temporary work does not offer many advantages, and consequently will often be regarded as only a transitional solution because of a lack of alternatives. Commitment may therefore develop due to simply the fact that one is in work at all rather than due to temporary work as a form of employment. In contrast, in a more flexible labor market such as the UK or the Netherlands, temporary work may imply more of a choice rather than a necessity. However, our data show that there is a considerable variation within this group, indicating that there are both positive and negative attitudes towards this form of employment. This finding is in line with other (UK-based) research in this area showing that a percentage of temp workers prefer this form of work (Guest, 2004) or are satisfied with their job (Guest & Clinton, 2006). In terms of commitment, however, whether or not temporary workers are in their contract of choice influences the results, in that, temporary workers who are not in their contract of choice show less commitment than permanent workers (Guest & Clinton, 2006). Similarly, Connelly et al. (2007) found that voluntary temporary workers show high affective commitment to their agency whereas those who prefer permanent work show high calculative commitment to their agency. Further research should examine the specific personal and situational antecedents of commitment to temporary work. A factor that may influence this assumption of low attractiveness of temporary work in Germany in the future is a strengthening economy. When employees feel secure about staying employed with temporary agencies or perceive that it is easy to switch between temporary and permanent work, they will probably be more prone to give in to their preferences with respect to employment form. In this discussion, it should not be forgotten that Germany is higher in ‘uncertainty avoidance’ than the UK or the US (Hofstede, 2001). This may add to the relative unattractiveness of perceived insecure forms of employment. In addition to the shifts in the labor market, and similar to many Western countries, the German workforce is ageing and this may foster a trend for more flexible work need as can already be seen in the UK or the US. Our results are of particular interest not only because of the theoretical insights but also because of their practical implications. Our results indicate that there is an opportunity to influence commitment by active commitment management in context of new forms of employment, for example, by providing appropriate working conditions. Further research on temporary work should distinguish between employment agency and clients (Gallagher & McLean Parks, 2001). On the one hand, time spent in a client company might be an important moderator to develop commitment to this organization; on the other hand, a high frequency of change might support the development of commitment to the employment agency. It was argued that, in contrast to other new forms of employment, self-employment leads to high commitment. The results obtained in this study confirm this assumption. We found significant differences for affective commitment to the organization and the form of employment between traditional employment and self-employment. This might be explained by experienced autonomy that leads to congruence between personal needs and working conditions, as well as a high degree of identification with the organization. It was pointed out that self-employment means leaving the traditional frame of employment (Gallagher & McLean Parks, 2001) and provides a new alternative. As self-employment provides an exceptional degree of need-fulfillment and self-actualizing opportunities, we expected and found exceptionally high affective commitment. Again, task content contributes to the explanation of variance. Thus, form of employment is an important source of variance, which means that differences are not only due to higher quality of task content, but also to the contextual frame of the form of employment. To justify the inclusion of form of employment measures it was necessary to demonstrate that they independently contribute to the prediction of outcomes. In line with Meyer et al. (1993) hierarchical regression were conducted. The results revealed that commitment to the form of employment made a significant, albeit small, contribution to the prediction of OCB scales, even if situational and personal factors as well as organizational and occupational commitment were controlled. It appears that behavior on the job is also influenced by this focus of commitment. Moreover, we could show that the relationship between commitment to the employment form and outcomes is partly mediated by organizational commitment. Following Bentein et al. (2002) the relationship between distal commitment entities and outcomes are mediated by more proximal entities. Whereas organizational commitment is more distal than work group commitment, it is more proximal than commitment to the employment form. Some limitations of the present research must be acknowledged. There are some concerns about the self-employed sample, which is heterogeneous and relatively small. Other limitations include the absence of causal analyses, and the use of self-report measures. At this stage of the research our primary objective was to investigate if the inclusion of a new focus helps to understand commitment in new forms of employment. We clearly demonstrated the importance of considering not only occupational and organizational commitment but also commitment to the form of employment. Further research should try to confirm our findings in a broader range of settings. Furthermore, the relationships among commitments should be investigated more deeply. Referring to the work of Bentein et al. (2002), interdependencies among commitments should be tested, and other entities, like commitment to change (Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002), should be included. It is necessary to note that people may be engaged in different employment forms at the same time, for example, work in a traditional part-time job and combine this with running their own business. Little is known about the prevalence of these mixed types of employment and the consequences for performance and overall well-being in each job. It is also interesting to consider if part-time work should be treated as a specific form of employment. Again, people may choose this form of employment for various reasons and, consequently, develop different kinds of commitment. In summary up our findings provide evidence that our aim to introduce commitment to the form of employment as a new focus was successful. Patterns of correlations and means were consistent and in line with prior research. The extension to a new focus within the framework of the three-component model helps to investigate commitment to new forms of employment in future research.