Job insecurity and psychological well-being

In contrast to the actual job loss, job insecurity refers to a subjective reaction of a worker to the work environment, i.e., it is based on individual perceptions and interpretations that may differ for different workers in the same objective situation (Greenhalgh & Rosenblatt, 1984; Hartley, Jacobson, Klandermans, & Van Vuuren, 1991). The subjective nature of this phenomenon has manifested itself when the perception of job insecurity was correlated with measures of self-esteem and personal control (Orpen, 1994). Workers with high self-esteem and internal control were less negatively affected by job insecurity than their colleagues with low self-esteem and external control.. Hartley et al. (1991) argues that job insecurity occurs when there is a difference between the level of security a worker experiences and the level he/she expects.

Systematic research on job insecurity is relatively young. Sverke and Hellgren (2002) state that it has only recently emerged as a function of labor markets; before,it was just a variable in broad inventories of the organizational work climate. Conceptual work on this topic started in 1984 with a paper by Greenhalgh and Rosenblatt. To a large extent, research on job insecurity has been atheoretical (De Cuyper & De Witteand, 2010), and has often used single-item measures and unknown psychometric properties (Sverke & Hellgren, 2002).

The distinction between quantitative job insecurity (fear of terminal job loss) and qualitative job insecurity (fear of losing important job features) has been drawn in several studies (Greenhalgh & Rosenblatt, 1984; Hellgren, Sverke, & Isaksson, 1999; Roskies & Louis-Guerin, 1990). Qualitative job insecurity is related to various aspects of employment, such as deteriorating working conditions, career opportunities, early retirement, decreasing salary development, etc[cite].

Psychological well-being is a key focus of many studies, including those in the field of organizational behavior. This variable was found to be not only essential for the general quality of life, but also has been linked to better performance at work (Wright & Cropanzano, 2000; Daniels & Harris, 2000) Psychological well-being has been traditionally measured using six dimensions: autonomy, environmental mastery, personal growth, positive relations with others, purpose in life, self-acceptance (Bradburn, 1969; Ryff, 1989; Ryff, Keyes, & Corey, 1995).

The causal relationship between perceived job insecurity and lowered psychological well-being has been established in multiple studies (Davy, Kinicki, & Scheck, 1997; Rosenblatt, Talmud, & Ruvio, 1999; De Witte, 2010; Sidney, Dekker, & Schaufeli, 1995; Sverke, & Hellgren, 2001; Mohr, 2000). It is intuitively clear that when a person expects deterioration of the quality of life associated with job loss or worse working conditions, he/she will experience psychological discomfort, which can become chronic. It is consistent with one of the central ideas of stress research: anticipation of a stressful event is an equally, if not a more important, source of anxiety than the event itself (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984).

The effects of qualitative and quantitative job insecurity on psychological well-being have been studied to a small degree. One study indicates that quantitative insecurity is more strongly related to psychological well-being and health complaints while qualitative insecurity has greater effects on work attitudes (Hellgren, Sverke, & Isaksson, 1999). Greenhalgh and Rosenblatt (1984), who introduced the qualitative-quantitative distinction, argue that qualitative insecurity is less important because it does not assume loss of organizational membership and psychological identification.

Therefore, we assume that job insecurity, both quantitative and qualitative, is likely to bring lowered psychological well-being to workers. However, the effects of job insecurity on manual vs. non-manual labor workers’ psychological well-being are likely to differ in that non-manual labor workers would experience more detrimental psychological effects. Because manual labor is considered to require less skilled work and is likely to be replaced with machinery, the employees in the manual labor sector would feel more at risk in case of quantitative job insecurity. More qualified workers (non-manual labor) would feel that they can more easily find another job and may even quit in order to avoid the stress of negative expectations (Greenlagh & Rosenblatt 1984; Hartley, Jacobson, Klandermans, & Van Vuuren, 1991).