Moderating Effects between Job Insecurity and Intention to Quit in Samples of Slovene and Austrian Workers
Paul Jiménez
Department of Psychology, University of Graz, Austria paul.jimenez@uni-graz.at
Borut Milfelner
Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Maribor, Slovenia borut.milfelner@uni-graz.at
Simona Šarotar Žižek
Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Maribor, Slovenia simona.sarotar-zizek@um.si
Anita Dunkl
Department of Psychology, University of Graz, Austria anita.dunkl@uni-graz.at
ORIGINAL SCIENTIFIC PAPER
RECEIVED: OCTOBER 2016
REVISED: DECEMBER 2016
ACCEPTED: JANUARY 2017
DOI: 10.1515/ngoe-2017-0003
UDK: 331.4:159.944.4
JEL: J28, J81
Citation: Jiménez, P., Milfelner, B., Šarotar Žižek, S., & Dunkl, A. (2017). Moderating Effects between Job Insecurity and Intention to Quit in Samples of Slovene and Austrian Workers. Naše gospodarstvo/Our Economy, 63(1), 27-37. DOI: 10.1515/ ngoe-2017-0003
Abstract
Job insecurity is a serious stressor in the work environment, with negative work-related outcomes. The effects of job insecurity strongly depend on the country's economic condition. The present study investigated the relationship among job insecurity, job satisfaction, and the intention to quit as well as possible mediating variables (resources/recovery and stress). The samples of 251 Slovene and 219 Austrian workers were analyzed. The data indicated that job insecurity is related to higher stress and intention to quit as well as to lower resources/recovery at the workplace. Stress is an important mediator in the relationship between resources/ recovery and job satisfaction as well as intention to quit. These relationships were found in both samples.
Key words: intention to quit, job insecurity, job satisfaction, resources, recovery, stress
Introduction
When the global financial crisis hit Europe in 2008, many countries suffered from significant labor market changes. The effects are still visible years later, such as having high unemployment rates in the countries most affected by the crisis. According to Anderson and Pontusson (2007), these critical labor market conditions seem to be related to a higher fear of losing one's job, a higher experience of stress, and lower job satisfaction (JS).
The fear of losing one's job (i.e., job insecurity [JI]) and its negative effects on work-related outcomes have been repeatedly studied in the past. However, in
NG
NASE GOSPODARSTVO OUR ECONOMY
Vol.
.63 No. 1 2017
pp
. 27-37
27
NAŠE GOSPODARSTVO / OUR ECONOMY
Vol. 63 No. 1 / March 2017
these studies, JI has mostly been operationalized as different employment types, such as fixed or temporary contracts (de Cuyper & De Witte, 2009; Rigotti, de Cuyper, De Witte, Korek & Mohr, 2009). These different employment types do not automatically reflect employees' work environment, and relationships with work-related outcomes might show contradictory results (Silla, Gracia, & Peiro, 2005). These negative effects of JI on work-related outcomes appear to depend strongly on the economic conditions of the country. Studies have shown that, in countries with worse macroeco-nomic factors, the negative relationship between JI and JS as well as commitment is stronger (De Witte & Näswall, 2003).
In addition to JS, intention to quit has been frequently used as an outcome variable of JI. Our study extends previous research on the JI-intention to quit relationship in several ways. First, we examine stress, resources/recovery and JS simultaneously as mediating factors between JI and intention to quit. To our knowledge, including stress, resources/ recovery, and JS simultaneously as moderators has not yet been done in research about job insecurity and intention to quit. Second, we investigate the effects of JI in two countries with different economic conditions: Austria and Slovenia. Although geographically neighbors, Austria and Slovenia differ significantly in terms of their cultural past and economy. Slovenia in particular suffered from the great recession in 2009, where unemployment rates increased strongly. As job insecurity is especially dependent on the economic condition of the country, we aim to investigate if the proposed structure among job insecurity, intention to quit, and moderating variables (JS, stress, and resources/recovery) differ in countries with different economic conditions.
Theoretical Background
Job insecurity and outcomes. JI is described as experiencing a discrepancy between the preferred and the perceived level of security at the workplace—more specifically, the "perceived threat of job loss and the worries related to that threat" (De Witte, 2005, p. 1). JI can be differentiated between cognitive JI and affective JI (Anderson & Pontus-son, 2007; Sverke & Hellgren, 2002). The cognitive component of JI refers to the individual's estimated probability of job loss in the near future. The affective component describes the worry or fear of job loss.
Another distinction has to be made between subjective self-perceived JI and objective indicators of insecurity (Erlinghagen, 2008; De Witte & Näswall, 2003). The first refers to the individual's subjective feeling of insecurity about keeping the job in the future. The latter is the result of economic conditions that are likely to influence the
~28~
individual's perception of JI, such as organizations' downsizing strategies, or a critical economic situation indicated by high levels of unemployment and bad labor market situation (Anderson & Pontusson, 2007; Erlinghagen, 2008). Critical labor market conditions and high unemployment rates seem to be highly connected with subjective JI: Anderson and Pontusson (2007) showed in their study that employees in countries with high levels of unemployment (e.g., Spain or Portugal) are more likely to experience JI, whereas the lowest subjective JI can be found in Scandinavian countries. These results indicate that labor market conditions seem to be a powerful predictor for JI.
JI is seen as an especially harmful stressor that affects well-being at the workplace, as this stressor includes uncertainty and uncontrollability. Therefore, it is difficult for the individual to react adequately to the stressor with the appropriate coping strategy, which in turn leads to feelings of anxiety and lower well-being (Sverke, Hellgren, & Näswall, 2002). One theory that explains the negative outcomes of JI is the psychological contract theory (Rousseau, 1995). According to this theory, the employer and the employee perceive a mutual obligation to each other (e.g., a psychological contract). Within this contract, the loyalty of the employee is exchanged with the security of the employer. If the employer can no longer guarantee security, employees will perceive this as a violation of the psychological contract, which has consequences for the well-being and commitment of employees (De Witte, 2005; Schreurs, Emmerik, Notelaers, & De Witte, 2010).
JI seems to be negatively associated with JS and physical health, and positively associated with stress and burnout (Bosman, Rothmann & Buitendach, 2005; De Cuyper & De Witte, 2007; Reisel, Probst, Chia, & König, 2010). In other studies, JI is positively associated with a higher need for recovery, which indicates a lack of recovery and health problems (Schreurs et al., 2010). In addition, employees who worry about losing their job have a higher intention to quit their job (Stiglbauer, Selenko, Batinic, & Jodlbauer, 2012).
JS and intention to quit. Büssing, Bissels, Fuchs, and Perrar (1999) describe JS as a comparison between the current work situation and the aspiration level, which can lead to different forms of JS. In the cybernetic model of job satisfaction (Jiménez, 2006), JS is seen as either an outcome or a causing variable. The major goal in this model is to obtain a homeostatic condition for satisfaction. Similar to Büssing et al. (1999), JS is described as the result of the comparison of the current state of JS with the aspiration level. This comparison is also influenced by expected changes in time (e.g., a person expects that the working conditions will improve). Specifically, JS can be regulated by the subjective expectation of the future, and these future expectations can predict
Paul Jiménez, Borut Milfelner, Simona Šarotar Žižek, Anita Dunkl:
Moderating Effects between Job Insecurity and Intention to Quit in Samples of Slovene and Austrian Workers
behaviors (Jiménez, Dunkl, & Stolz, 2015). If JS is low and the future JS is negative, the employees might use coping strategies such as inner withdrawal or having the intention to leave the organization.
Van Dick et al. (2004) explained the link between JS and intention to quit with the social identity approach and self-categorization theory by Haslam, Jetten, Postmes, and Haslam (2009). They argued that satisfied co-workers link their own future to the organization's future. Thus, quitting the organization would be counterproductive.
JS and intention to quit can be outcomes of JI. In De Witte and Naswall's (2003) study, four countries with different economic conditions were investigated regarding the relationship between subjective JI and JS and commitment. The findings indicated that, in countries with stable economic conditions (i.e., Sweden and the Netherlands), the relationship between JI and JS/commitment was lower than in countries with unstable economic conditions (i.e., Belgium and Italy).
Resources/recovery-stress state and its relationship with JS and intention to quit. The resources/recovery-stress state refers to processes of stress, resources, and recovery and not solely on recovery activities or stress symptoms (Kallus, 2016). According to the model of resources/recovery-stress balance, a balance is achieved "when the depleted resources during stress episodes are adequately restored in the recovery phases" (Kallus, 2016, p. 41). This interplay among stress, resources, and recovery is rarely addressed explicitly in traditional stress theories. However, many researchers highlight the importance of including recovery in stress research (Sonnentag, Mojza, Demerouti, & Bakker, 2012; Zijlstra, Cropley, & Rydstedt, 2014). The combination of recovery and resources at the workplace is discussed very rarely. The concepts of resources and recovery can be seen as almost interchangeable in the work-related context, as recovery at work can be referred to restoring work-related resources (Jiménez, Dunkl, & Kallus, 2016). The important role of resources/recovery becomes especially apparent if we include organizational outcomes such as intention to quit in the stress-recovery relationship. Research shows that resources/ recovery are negatively related to intention to quit, and this relationship is fully mediated by stress (Bakker, Demerouti, & Euwema, 2005; Jiménez, Dunkl, & PeiEl, 2016). This result supports the assumption of the model of resources/ recovery-stress balance, where recovered resources potentially buffer negative effects of demands by reducing stress.
Differences between Austria and Slovenia. A critical economic situation is highly related with the individual perception of JI and might have different effects on JS and intention to quit. In the present paper, we focus on Austria
and Slovenia as they differ significantly in terms of cultural past and economy.
Slovenia was the most developed Yugoslav republic that gained its independence in June 1991 and developed many business ties with Western Europe even prior to the transition period (Gligorov, 2004). When the great recession hit the global capitalist economy in 2008 and 2009, the Slovene economy experienced a decrease of exports by 16.1% in 2009 and a devastating decline in economic growth. The gross domestic product (GDP) per capita was 29.95 in 2008, 27.59 in 2010, and 26.91 in 2012 (OECD, 2015). The debt crisis that followed was a logical outcome of the recession and the crisis rooted in the corporate sector. The government debt reached 35.1% of GDP in 2010, 38.7% in 2011, 47.1% in 2012, and 54.4% in 2013 (overview by Furlan, 2014). Unemployment rates were 4.4% in 2008 (year of the crisis) and rose to 7.2% (2010) and 8.8% (2012), leading to higher employment rates than the OECD average (OECD, 2015).
In Austria, the GDP per capita is higher than in Slovenia and much more stable, being 42.91 in 2008, 41.88 in 2010, and 43.04 in 2012. Austria's unemployment rates also proved to be rather stable: 4.1% in 2008 and 5.2% in 2010 and 2012 (OECD, 2015). Austria and Slovenia also differ regarding the inhabitants' well-being. In Arechavala, Espina, and Trapero's (2015) study, the quality of life in 27 EU countries was investigated in 2007 (before the economic crisis) and in 2011. This quality-of-life indicator consisted of components such as income, health, society, physical environment, safety and education. In both years, the Austrian population had a much higher quality of life (ranking 7 and 5) than the Slovene population (ranking 11 and 12), further supporting the assumption that Austrians experience better economic conditions than Slovenes and that economic conditions influence life quality.
Hypotheses. JI has numerous negative outcomes, such as lower JS and resources/recovery, as well as higher stress and intention to quit. Therefore, we propose the following hypotheses:
H1: Job insecurity is positively related to stress.
H2: Job insecurity is negatively related to resources/ recovery.
H3: Job insecurity is negatively related to job satisfaction.
H4: Job insecurity is positively related to intention to quit.
Referring to past research, JS and intention to quit are linked. Therefore, we add the following hypothesis:
H5: Job satisfaction is negatively related to intention to quit.
29
NASE GOSPODARSTVO / OUR ECONOMY
Vol. 63 No. 1 / March 2017
According to the model of resources/recovery-stress balance, we propose that stress can be seen as an important mediator between resources/recovery and JS as well as intention to quit. All proposed relationships are depicted in Figure 1.
H6: Stress mediates the positive relationship between resources/recovery and job satisfaction.
H7: Stress mediates the negative relationship between resources/recovery and intention to quit.
In compliance with the literature, a critical economic situation is highly related with the individual perception of JI. Therefore, we propose that, in a country with a worse economic situation (Slovenia), the effects of JI will be stronger than in a country with a stable economic situation (Austria).
H8: The impairing effects of job insecurity on stress, recovery/resources, job satisfaction and intention to quit (H1-H4) will be stronger in Slovenia than in Austria.
Method
Sample and procedure. Austrian and Slovene workers were invited to participate in an online study. The data were collected in cooperation with a well-known German market research company1 in 2012 by sending out e-mails to Austrian and Slovene workers. As we aimed to obtain a working population for our analyses, two requirements for participation were set. Participants who did not fulfill
1 Data were collected within the project "culture4leadership"
funded by the state of Styria within the "grenz-frei" framework.
the requirements of (i) working at least 10 hours per week and (ii) having colleagues at work were excluded from participating in the study. Using this selection method, a sample of 219 Austrian and 251 Slovene participants was acquired.
Austrian sample. Of the 219 employees, 46.6% were male and 53.4% were female. Furthermore, 30.6% were 30 years or younger, 26.5% were between 31 and 40 years, 23.7% were between 41 and 50 years old, and 19.2% were older than 50 years. The majority of participants (78.1%) worked full-time or more, while the rest (21.9%) worked part-time. The participants worked in different industrial sectors, most of them in manufacturing (11.3%), health care (10.8%), telecommunications, (10.8%) and the public sector (8.4%).
Slovene sample. Of the 251 employees, 45% were male and 55% were female. In terms of age, 19.9% were 30 years or younger, 43% were between 31 and 40 years, 23.5% were between 41 and 50 years old, and 13.5% were older than 50 years. Nearly all of the participants (96.8%) worked fulltime; only 3.2% worked part-time. The participants worked in different industrial sectors, including manufacturing (20.1%), public sector (14.9%), commerce/trades (8.8%), and telecommunication (8%).
Measures.
Job insecurity. JI was measured with one item: "I am afraid to lose my current job." The answer scale ranged from 1 (no) to 4 (yes).
Job satisfaction. Several aspects of JS were measured with the screening version of the Profile Analysis of JS (PAJS-SC, Jiménez, 2008). The items were written in keywords (e.g., "Satisfaction with... having a demanding job"). The 16 items were answered on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from
30
Paul Jiménez, Borut Milfelner, Simona Šarotar Žižek, Anita Dunkl:
Moderating Effects between Job Insecurity and Intention to Quit in Samples of Slovene and Austrian Workers
1 (dissatisfied) to 5 (very satisfied). The items were categorized into three dimensions—task-related JS, social JS, and organizational JS—and could be combined to one JS score.
Stress and resources/recovery. Stress and resources/ recovery at the workplace were measured using the Recovery-Stress-Questionnaire for Work (RESTQ-Work-55, Jiménez & Kallus, 2016). This questionnaire addresses different aspects of stress, resources, and recovery in the preceding seven days/nights. The 55 items can be assigned to 7 sub-dimensions: social emotional stress, performance(-re-lated) stress, loss of meaning/burnout, general recovery, leisure/breaks, psychosocial recovery, and work-related recovery. These dimensions can be further classified as total stress and total resources/recovery. One example item for a resources/recovery activity is "In the past 7 days and nights... I was able to relax during my breaks." The answer scale ranged from 0 (never) to 6 (always).
Intention to quit. The intention to quit scale (I2Q, Jiménez, 2002) measured the intention to leave the organization with three items: (1) The thought of looking for a new job already entered my mind, (2) I would prefer working in a different business, and (3) I have already looked for another job. The answer scale was evenly divided from 1 (no), 2 (rather no than yes), 3 (rather yes than no), to 4 (yes).
All questionnaires were translated into Slovene by three translators using a high-quality translation process. Aspects
like cultural norms or other cultural specifics were considered in the translation of the questionnaire.
Analysis. A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using structural equation modelling (SEM) with the maximum likelihood method of estimation was performed. In order to simplify the structures, second order constructs for JS, stress, and resources/recovery were recalculated to second-order latent constructs. For intention to quit, first-order latent constructs were entered in the structural model. JI (one item) was entered as a manifest variable. For the analyses, SPSS 22.0 and AMOS 21.0 were used.
Results
Item analysis, reliability and validity of the measures.
Means, standard deviations, and reliability estimates (Cron-bach's alpha) for all scales, separately for the Austrian and Slovene sample, are shown in Table 1. All correlations are shown in Table 2. The convergent validity, discriminant validity, and reliability were assessed for all constructs with an exploratory factor analysis (Table 3). All factor loadings were higher than .60, and the average variance extracted (AVE) exceeded .50 for all latent variables, indicating convergent validity. Composite reliability (CR) was higher than .80 for all constructs, indicating good reliability. Discriminant validity was achieved, as all AVE for the latent
Table 1. Means, Standard Deviations, Internal Consistencies (Cronbach's a) among AH Study Scales for the Austrian and Slovene Samples
		Austria			Slovenia		
No.	Dimension	Mean	SD	a	Mean	SD	a
1	JI	1.94	1.02	-	2.14	1.11	-
2	JS	3.57	0.87	.96	3.24	0.79	.94
3	Stress	2.02	1.19	.94	2.12	1.07	.92
4	Resources/recovery	3.28	0.99	.81	3.26	0.96	.85
5	Intention to Quit	2.10	0.98	.86	2.51	1.06	.88
Note: Austria N = 219 and Slovenia N = 251; Cronbach's a cannot be obtained for JI (single-item)
Table 2. Correlations among All Study Scales for the Austrian (lower left) and Slovene (upper right) Samples
No.	Dimension	1	2	3	4	5
1	JI		-.25««	.30««	-.31««	.28««
2	JS	-.25""		-.48««	.53««	-.48««
3	Stress	.28««	-.61««		-.46««	.35««
4	Resources/recovery	-.25""	.59««	-.53««		-.29««
5	Intention to Quit	.22««	-.60««	.50««	-.39««	
Note: ** correlation significant (p < .01)
31
NASE GOSPODARSTVO / OUR ECONOMY
Vol. 63 No. 1 / March 2017
Table 3. Indicators' Means, Standard Deviations, Loadings, Composite Reliabilities (CR), and Average Variances Extracted (AVE) for the Joint Sample
Latent variable	Manifest variables	Mean	SD	Loading (lambda)	CR	AVE
JI	I am afraid to lose my current job	2.04	1.07	1.00	n/A	n/A
	Task-related JS	3.46	0.87	0.92		
JS	Social JS	3.55	0.99	0.76	0.89	0.73
	Organizational JS	3.12	0.94	0.87		
	Social emotional stress	2.10	1.26	0.90		
Stress	Performance(-related) stress	2.13	1.15	0.91	0.93	0.81
	Loss of meaning/burnout	2.00	1.22	0.89		
	Overall recovery	3.41	1.01	0.88		
Resources/	Leisure/breaks	3.05	1.16	0.70	0.84	0.57
recovery	Psychosocial recovery	3.32	1.29	0.69		
	Work-related recovery	3.29	1.30	0.73		
	The thought of looking for a new job already entered my mind	2.55	1.16	0.92		
qufi™ toI would prefer working in a different business		2.20	1.11	0.78	0.88	0.71
	I have already looked for another job	2.20	1.21	0.82		
Table 4. Correlations between the Second Order Constructs and AVE (joint sample)
	JS	Stress	Resources/recovery	Intention to quit
JS	.73			
Stress	-.54	.81		
Resources/recovery	.55	-.50	.57	
Intention to quit	-.55	.42	-.33	.71
Note: AVE in the diagonal and bolded.
Figure 2. Structural equation modeling (SEM)-joint sample
Note. *paths significant at p < .05; **paths significant at p < .01.
32
Paul Jiménez, Borut Milfelner, Simona Šarotar Žižek, Anita Dunkl:
Moderating Effects between Job Insecurity and Intention to Quit in Samples of Slovene and Austrian Workers
constructs were greater than the standardized correlation of the pairs of latent constructs (Table 4).
Structural equation modeling (SEM). First the analysis was performed on the joint sample in order to test hypotheses 1 to 5. The model (x2(64) = 271.8) reached an acceptable fit (GFI = .92, CFI = .95 RMSEA = .08) and showed the predicted paths to be in the expected direction, with the exception of JI to JS, which was not significant (Figure 2). As expected, JI showed a positive path to stress (.13) and to intention to quit (.12) and a negative path to resources/ recovery (-.32). Resources/recovery was negatively related to stress (-.55). Stress showed a negative relationship with JS (-.35) and a positive relationship with intention to quit (.19). Finally, JS was strongly related to intention to quit (-.50) and resources/recovery (.37).
Analysis of mediating effects. Mediating effects proposed in hypotheses 6 and 7 were tested using Baron and Kenny's (1986) and Judd and Kenny's (1981) procedure as well as the bootstrapping procedure proposed by Preacher and Hayes (2008). The results (direct, indirect, and total effects) are presented in Table 5. The indirect impact of resources/recovery on JS was weaker than the direct impact (pd = .37; pid = .19) but significant, meaning that stress only partially mediated the relationship between resources/recovery and JS (H6). Furthermore,
resources/recovery did not have a direct impact on intention to quit but a negative indirect impact (pd = ns.; pid = -.39) on intention to quit, meaning that either JS or stress could mediate the relationship. Therefore, an alternative model was tested in which JS was excluded. Direct paths from resources/recovery to stress and from resources/recovery to intention to quit were both significant. Adding a path from stress to intention to quit, the relationship between resources/recovery and intention to quit became non-significant, meaning that stress completely mediated the negative relationship between resources/recovery and intention to quit (H7).
Differences in impacts for both samples (Austria and Slovenia). In H8, we expected the impairing effects of job insecurity on stress, recovery/resources, job satisfaction, and intention to quit to be stronger in Slovenia than in Austria. To assess the differences in impacts for both samples, a group analysis of the structural model and invariance testing (configural and metric invariance) between the group was deployed (e.g. Horn & McArdle, 1992; Steenkamp & Baumgartner, 1998, Vanderberg & Lance, 2000).
Configural invariance was achieved, as all indices were in appropriate intervals (Table 4). Metric invariance was tested by constraining all factor loadings of the single constructs. Comparing the metric invariance model to the configural
Table S. Direct, Indirect, and Total Impacts in Structural Model
Paths	Direct impact Sig.			Indirect impact	Sig.	Total impact	Sig.
JI-> Stress	.127	p<.01		.175	p<.01	.302	p<.01
JI -> JS	-.054	ns.		-.224	p<.05	-.278	p<.01
JI -> Resources/recovery	-.318	p<.01		n.a.	n.a.	-.318	p<.01
JI -> Intention to quit	.116	p<.01		.170	p<.05	.286	p<.01
Resources/recovery -> Stress	-.547	p<.01		n.a.	n.a.	-.547	p<.01
Resources/recovery -> JS	.370	p<.01		.193	p<.05	.563	p<.01
Resources/recovery -> Intention to quit	.081	ns.		-.385	p<.05	-.304	p<.05
Stress -> JS	-.354	p<.01		n.a.	n.a.	-.354	p<.01
Stress -> Intention to Quit	.185	p<.01		.178	p<.05	.363	p<.05
JS -> Intention to Quit	-.504	p<.01		n.a.	n.a.	-.538	p<.01
Fit indices for the structural model: H(60)=	271.8; p<.001; RMSEA=.08; GFI=			.92; NFI=.94;TLI=.93; IFI=.95			
Note: n.a. = not applicable; ns. = not significant							
Table 6. Invariance Test Results for the Structural Model							
Model X2	df	A x2/df sig.	NFI	IFI	TLI	CFI	RMSEA
Configurai invariance 321.56	128		.93	.90	.94	.96	.06
Metric invariance 336.17	137	0.10	.93	.90	.94	.95	.06
Path invariance 343.15	147	0.73	.92	.91	.94	.95	.05
33
NAŠE GOSPODARSTVO / OUR ECONOMY
Vol. 63 No. 1 / March 2017
invariance model, the A x2/df was statistically insignificant, indicating that metric equivalence was achieved. Finally, all regression paths were constrained between the two groups to test if the paths were different. Table 6 shows that the path invariance model (constrained paths) was not significantly different from the metric invariance model (unconstrained paths), meaning that the impacts did not differ for the two groups. Therefore, H8 was not supported. A detailed investigation of the regression paths in both groups revealed that they were not significantly different (JI x stress: Slovenia = .13, Austria = .11; JI x recovery/resources: Slovenia = -.34, Austria = -.30; JI x JS: Slovenia = -.04, Austria = -.03; JI x intention to quit: Slovenia: .10, Austria =.13)
Discussion
The aim of the present study was to investigate the relationships among JI, JS, and intention to quit as well as the mediating effects of resources/recovery and stress. As economic conditions seem to be important for the perception of JI, we investigated the relationships in two countries with different economic conditions: Austria and Slovenia.
The results indicated that JI was related to higher stress and intention to quit as well as lower resources/recovery, supporting hypotheses 1, 2, and 4. JI was not related to JS in the structural model. However, investigating the simple bivariate correlations, the relationship between the variables was negative (H3). The results verify that JI was a serious harmful stressor affecting different work-related outcomes. Giving employees secure workplaces might be challenging in times of economic uncertainty, but can lead to recovered, low-stressed employees who want to stay in the organization.
As expected, high JS was related to a lower intention to quit (H5), confirming explanation models about JS and intention to quit (Jiménez, 2006; Van Dick et al., 2004). Satisfied employees identify with their organization and feel committed to stay. For these employees ,coping strategies such as the intention to quit are not necessary as the evaluation of the current and expected working condition is positive.
Stress seemed to be an important mediator in the relationship between resources/recovery and JS as well as intention to quit (H6 and H7). These results are in line with past research (Bakker et al., 2005; Jiménez, Dunkl, & PeiEl, 2016) and the model of resources/recovery-stress balance, where recovered resources are able to reduce feelings of stress, which in turn raises JS and lowers the intention to quit the job.
As economic conditions might influence the perception and effects of JI, we expected higher coefficients for the relationships between job insecurity and its respective outcomes in the Slovenian sample (H8). Taking the economic development of Slovenia into account, the country finds itself in a recession. As for Austria, its economy is doing well and seems to be stable. However, our analyses did not show any structural differences between the two countries, indicating that the effects of JI are similar in both countries. However, we did not ask our participants if their subjective perception of the economic condition in their country overlapped with the objective indicators. It might be possible that, although the current state in Slovenia shows critical economic conditions, employees expect them to improve in the future. Alternatively, despite having a good market condition compared to Slovenia, Austrian employees might fear a worsening of their current situation. Both perceptions could have influenced our findings.
Limitations. This study was a cross-sectional study, with the data collected at one measurement point. To determine causality, longitudinal analyses are needed.
A single-item measure was used to operationalize JI. Single items are easier to understand than a scale score (Wanous, Reichers, & Hudy 1997) and are used to avoid an overlap with other variables (De Witte, 1999), which occurs if different instruments measure same aspects. The disadvantage of using a single item of JI lies in the underestimation of effects (Sverke et al., 2002). Therefore, we recognize that a single item measure has its limits, and the model should be further verified with a multi-item measure.
Practical implications and conclusion. Managers should pay attention to the fact that employees perceive their organization as successful and secure, which is also reflected in permanent forms of employment. In order to control competitive challenges, organizations in Slovenia need to develop a strategic management, which defines vision, goals, strategies, tactics and projects. Next to security in employment, organizations should focus on developing workplace health promotion programs (WHP), which help employees raise the resources to cope with stress, even under high demands.
JS is an attitude toward the work environment and depends on the expectations regarding the future of the organization (Jiménez et al., 2015). JS determines the behavioral strategies of employees; therefore, organizations should take care of it. As we demonstrated, JI does not have a (strong) effect on JS, which helps to underscore the importance of WHP intervention. WHP can also—or better, even—be recommended in economically hard times to improve the work environment and JS.
34
Paul Jiménez, Borut Milfelner, Simona Šarotar Žižek, Anita Dunkl:
Moderating Effects between Job Insecurity and Intention to Quit in Samples of Slovene and Austrian Workers
References
Anderson, C. J., & Pontusson, H. J. (2007). Workers, worries and welfare states: Social protection and job insecurity in 15 OECD countries.
European Journal of Political Research, 46(2), 211-235. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6765.2007.00692.x Arechavala, N. S., Espina, P. Z., & Trapero, B. P. (2015). The economic crisis and its effects on the quality of life in the European Union. Social Indicator Research, 120, 323-343. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-014-0595-9
Bakker, A., Demerouti, E., & Euwema, M. (2005). Job resources buffer the impact of job demands on burnout. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 10(2), 170-180. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.10.2170
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.61173 Bosman, J., Rothmann, S., & Buitendach, J. H. (2005). Job insecurity, burnout and work engagement: The impact of positive and negative affectivity. Journal of Industrial Psychology, 31(4), 48-56. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajip.v31i4.199
Büssing, T., Bissels, V., Fuchs, V., & Perrar, K.-M. (1999). A dynamic model of work satisfaction: Qualitative approaches. Human Relations, 52(8), 999-1027. https://doi.org/10.1023/A1016979523846
De Cuyper, N., & De Witte, H. (2007). Job insecurity in temporary versus permanent workers: Associations with attitudes, well-being, and
behaviour. Work & Stress, 21(1), 65-84. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678370701229050 De Witte, H. (1999). Job insecurity and psychological well-being: Review of the literature and exploration of some unresolved issues. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8(2), 155-177. https://doi.org/10.1080/135943299398302
De Witte, H. (2005). Job insecurity: Review of the international literature on definitions, prevalence, antecedents and consequences. Journal of Industrial Psychology, 31(4), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajip.v31i4.200
De Witte, H., & Näswall, K. (2003). "Objective" vs. "subjective" job insecurity: Consequences of temporary work for job satisfaction and organizational commitment in four European countries. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 24(2), 149-188. https://doi. org/10.1177/0143831X03024002002
Erlinghagen, M. (2008). Self-perceived job insecurity and social context: A multi-level analysis of 17 European countries. European
Sociological Review, 24(2), 183-197. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcm042 Furlan, S. (2014). The Slovenian banking and debt crisis. Competitiveness, Debt, Slovenia. Retrieved from http://www.troikawatch.net/ the-slovenian-banking-and-debt-crisis/
Gligorov, V. (2004). Socialism and the disintegration of SFR Yugoslavia. In M. Mrak, M. Rojek, & C. Silva-Jauregui (Eds.), Slovenia: From Yugoslavia to the European Union (pp. 16-31). Washington, DC: World Bank.
Haslam, S. A., Jetten, J., Postmes, T., & Haslam, C. (2009). Social identity, health and well-being: An emerging agenda for applied
psychology. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 58(1), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2008.00379.x Horn, J. L., & McArdle, J. J. (1992). A practical and theoretical guide to measurement invariance in aging research. Experimental Aging Research, 18(3), 117-144. https://doi.org/10.1080/03610739208253916
Jiménez, P. (2002). Specific influences of job satisfaction and work characteristics on the intention to quit: Results of different studies. Psychologische Beiträge, 44, 596-603.
Jiménez, P. (2006). Arbeitszufriedenheit als Mittlervariable in Feedbackprozessen. Eine kybernetische Perspektive [Job satisfaction as mediator in feedback loops. A cybernetic view]. In L. Fischer (Eds.), Arbeitszufriedenheit Konzepte und empirische Befunde [Job satisfaction. Concepts and empirical results] (pp. 160-186). Göttingen: Hogrefe.
Jiménez, P. (2008). PAZ Profilanalyse der Arbeitszufriedenheit Manual Wiener Testsystem [Profile Analysis of Job Satisfaction. Test Manual
in Vienna Test System]. Mödling: Schuhfried GmbH. Jiménez, P., Dunkl, A., & Kallus, K. W. (2016). Recovery-stress questionnaire for work. In K. W. Kallus & M. Kellmann (Eds.), The recovery-stress questionnaires: User manual (pp. 158-187). Frankfurt: Pearson Assessment.
Jiménez, P., Dunkl, A., & Peißl, S. (2016). Workplace incivility and its effects on value congruence, recovery-stress-state and the intention to quit. Psychology, 6(14), 1930-1939. https://doi.org/10.4236/psych.2015.614190
Jiménez, P., Dunkl, A., & Stolz, R. (2015). Anticipation of the development of job satisfaction-Construct and validation results of an
indicator for well-being at the workplace. Psychology, 6(7), 856-866. https://doi.org/10.4236/psych.2015.67084 Jiménez, P., & Kallus, K. W. (2016). RESTO-Work. In K. W. Kallus & M. Kellmann (Eds.), The recovery-stress questionnaires: User Manual (pp.
327-346). Frankfurt: Pearson Assessment. Judd, C. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1981). Process analysis estimating mediation in treatment evaluations. Evaluation Review, 5(5), 602-619.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0193841X8100500502 Kallus, K. W. (2016). Stress and recovery: An overview. In K. W. Kallus & M. Kellmann (Eds.), The recovery-stress questionnaires: User
manual (pp. 27-48). Frankfurt: Pearson Assessment. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2015). Labour market situation. Retrieved from http://stats.oecd.org/
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 879-891. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.3.879
Reisel, W. D., Probst, T. M., Chia, S-L., & König, C. J. (2010). The effects of job insecurity on job satisfaction, organizational citizenship behavior, deviant behavior, and negative emotions of employees. International Studies of Management and Organization, 40(1), 74-91. https://doi.org/10.2753/IMO0020-8825400105
35
NAŠE GOSPODARSTVO / OUR ECONOMY
Vol. 63 No. 1 / March 2017
Rigotti, T., de Cuyper, N., de Witte, H., Korek, S., & Mohr, G. (2009). Employment prospects of temporary and permanent workers: Associations with well-being and work related attitudes. Journal of Everyday Activity, 2(1), 22-35.
Rousseau, D. (1995). Psychological contracts in organizations: Understanding written and unwritten agreements. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Schreurs, B., van Emmerik, H., Notelaers, G., & De Witte, H. (2010). Job insecurity and employee health: The buffering potential of job control and job self-efficacy. Work & Stress, 24(1), 56-72. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678371003718733
Silla, I., Gracia, F. J., & Peiro, J. M. (2005). Job insecurity and health-related outcomes among different types of temporary workers. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 26(1), 89-117. https://doi.org/10.1177/0143831X05049404
Sonnentag, S., Mojza, E. J., Demerouti, E., & Bakker, A. B. (2012). Reciprocal relations between recovery and work engagement: The moderating role of job stressors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(4), 842-853. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028292
Steenkamp, J. B. E., & Baumgartner, H. (1998). Assessing measurement invariance in cross-national consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 25(1), 78-90. https://doi.org/10.1086/209528
Stiglbauer, B., Selenko, E., Batinic, B., & Jodlbauer, S. (2012). On the link between job insecurity and turnover intentions: Moderated mediation by work involvement and well-being. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 17(3), 354-364. https://doi.org/10.1037/ a0028565
Sverke, M., & Hellgren, J. (2002). The nature of job insecurity: Understanding employment uncertainty on the brink of a new millennium. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 51(1), 23-42. https://doi.org/10.1111/1464-0597.0077z
Sverke, M., Hellgren, J., & Näswall, K. (2002). No security: A meta-analysis and review of job insecurity and its consequences. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 7(3), 242-264. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.73.242
Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 5(1), 4-7 https://doi.org/10.1177/109442810031002
Van Dick, R., Christ, O., Stellmacher, J., Wagner, U., Ahlswede, O., Grubba, C., ... Tissington, P. (2004). Should I stay or should I go? Explaining turnover intentions with organizational identification and job satisfaction. British Journal of Management, 15, 351-360. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2004.00424.x
Wanous, J. P., Reichers, A. E., & Hudy, M. J. (1997). Overall job satisfaction: How good are single-item measures? Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(2), 247-252. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.82.2.247
Zijlstra, F. R. H., Cropley, M., & Rydstedt, L. W. (2014). From recovery to regulation: An attempt to reconceptualize "recovery from work". Stress and Health, 30, 244-252. https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.2604
Authors
Dr. Paul Jiménez works at the University of Graz in the Work, Organizational, and Environmental Psychology Department. Currently, his main field of research is work-related stress and recovery, as well as job satisfaction, burnout, and leadership. His scientific contribution is visible in a long list of publications to this field. He is also working in the practical field as a consultant in the area of workplace health promotion, a participant of norming committees (Austrian norms and ISO), a member of the Work, Economic, and Organizational Psychology Division of the Austrian Federation of Psychologists (BOEP), and a delegate of Austria for the Standing Committee of Work and Organizational Psychology in the European Federation of Psychologists' Associations.
Dr. Borut Milfelner is an associate professor of marketing at the University of Maribor, Slovenia, Faculty of Economics and Business. He received his Ph.D. degree from the University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Economics in 2010. His research interests include the areas of marketing research, internal marketing, consumer behavior, tourism marketing, and resource-based theory. His scientific bibliography consists of 32 published scientific articles (12 of them in JCR-indexed journals), 37 scientific conference contributions, 5 scientific monographs, and participation in several research projects. He is also a member of the editorial board of three scientific journals in the field of marketing and management and a reviewer for several domestic and international scientific journals.
Simona Šarotar Žižek, Ph.D., is an assistant professor at the University of Maribor's Faculty of Economic and Business. She is the author and/or co-author of several articles published in various international and Slovenian journals and/or presented at scientific and expert conferences. She has prepared several scientific monographs and chapters in scientific and expert monographs. On several occasions she has been invited to present her papers at scientific and expert conferences. She is also active in preparing and implementing projects.
36
Paul Jiménez, Borut Milfelner, Simona Šarotar Žižek, Anita Dunkl:
Moderating Effects between Job Insecurity and Intention to Quit in Samples of Slovene and Austrian Workers
Mag. Anita Dunkl is a research associate at the University of Graz in the Work, Organizational, and Environmental Psychology Department. Anita graduated with a master's degree in work and organizational psychology, focused on job satisfaction. She continued her research at the University of Graz, working in different fields of work and organizational psychology. Her main field of research includes health-promoting leadership, workplace health promotion, burnout, and work-related stress and recovery.
Moderacijski učinek pri povezavi med varnostjo delovnega mesta in namero po odpovedi na vzorcu slovenskih in avstrijskih zaposlenih
Izvleček
Negotovost zaposlitve je v delovnem okolju stresor z negativnimi rezultati, povezanimi z delom. Učinki negotovosti delovnih mest so odvisni od gospodarskega stanja države. Raziskovali smo odnos med negotovostjo zaposlitve, zadovoljstvom pri delu in namero prenehati delati ter moderacijske spremenljivke (viri/regeneracija in stres). V vzorec raziskave je bilo vključenih 251 slovenskih in 219 avstrijskih zaposlenih. Rezultati kažejo, da je negotovost zaposlitve povezana z višjo ravnijo stresa in z namero prenehati delati, hkrati pa tudi z manjšimi viri/regeneracijo na delovnem mestu. Stres je pomemben posrednik v odnosu med viri/regeneracijo in zadovoljstvom na delovnem mestu ter tudi namero prenehati delati, kar vse smo raziskali v obeh vzorcih.
Ključne besede: namera prenehati delati, negotovost zaposlitve, zadovoljstvo pri delu, viri, okrevanje, stres
37