See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/211393225

The Effects of Job Insecurity on Job Satisfaction, Organizational Citizenship

Behavior, Deviant Behavior, and Negative Emotions of Employees

Article  in  International Studies of Management and Organization · April 2010

DOI: 10.2753/IMO0020-8825400105

CITATIONS READS

282 7,765

5 authors, including:

William D Reisel Tahira Michelle Probst

St. John's University Washington State University
56 PUBLICATIONS   1,411 CITATIONS    152 PUBLICATIONS   6,950 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Swee-Lim Chia Cesar Maloles

La Salle University California State University, East Bay
20 PUBLICATIONS   618 CITATIONS    29 PUBLICATIONS   814 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Situational Perception in Situational Judgment Tests: The Role of Context in Situational Judgment Tests View project

Attitudes during and towards pandemics and coping strategies View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Cornelius J. König on 16 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Reisel, W. D., Probst, T. M., Chia, S-L., Maloles, C. M., & 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.

This article may not exactly replicate the final version, which is available from www.mesharpe.com/journal.asp

WILLIAM D. REISEL, TAHIRA M. PROBST, SWEE-LIM CHIA, CESAR M.

MALOLES, III, CORNELIUS J. KÖNIG

The Effects of Job Insecurity on Job Satisfaction, Organizational

Citizenship Behavior, Deviant Behavior, and Negative Emotions of
Employees

Abstract: This research examines the effects of job insecurity on three outcomes: job

attitudes (satisfaction), work behaviors (organizational citizenship behavior and deviant

behavior), and negative emotions (anxiety, anger, and burnout). A total of 320 U.S.

managers responded to a self-report electronic survey. Additionally, two independent

referees have analyzed and rated a subset of the sample of managers’ (N = 97)

comments over an electronic discussion group about their job satisfaction,

organizational citizenship behavior , and deviant behavior . Analyses of both sets of data

show that job insecurity is negatively related to satisfaction and that job insecurity has

both direct and indirect effects on work behaviors and emotions. We address these

results in the context of growing pressures on business to improve efficiencies through

human capital reductions bearing in mind the tradeoffs that businesses must anticipate as

employees respond to job insecurity in ways that are counterproductive to organizational

purpose.

William D. Reisel, Tobin College of Business Administration, St. John’s University, 300 Howard
Avenue, Staten Island, NY 10301, Tel: (718) 390-4389, E-mail: [email protected]; Tahira M.
Probst, Washington State University, Vancouver, E-mail: [email protected]; Swee-Lim
Chia, La Salle University, E-mail: [email protected]; Cesar M. Maloles, III, California State
University, East Bay, E-mail: [email protected]; Cornelius J. König, Universität
Zürich

1
The perception of having a job but not knowing it is secure has been classified as one of

the more stressful burdens that an employee can shoulder (Hartley, Jacobson,

Klandermans, and van Vuuren 1991; Ironson 1992). Yet competitive pressure on

businesses to rationalize their procedures and personnel is making job insecurity

increasingly common. Each year, over 1 million U.S. workers are eliminated from

positions during mass layoffs that help firms become more efficient by reducing payroll

costs (Bureau of Labor Statistics 2008). In this research, we examine how job insecurity

influences employee job attitudes, the enactment of positive and negative work

behaviors, and negative emotions.

The aims here are threefold. First, we provide empirical evidence showing how

job insecurity affects organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) and deviant behavior - a

link that has received limited examination in the past. By simultaneously testing OCB

and deviant behavior we can arrive at a fuller picture of the degree to which the direction

of reactions to job insecurity is consistent.

Second, we utilize multiple methods of data collection to mitigate problems

associated with response biases that are common to perceptual data research. Last, we

suggest practical implications of employing managers who are experiencing job

insecurity because they are very well established in their firms and perform complicated

tasks that are critical to organizational purposes. Our expectation is that an employee

performing more of the positive sorts of behavior such as organizational citizenship

behavior would also perform less of the deviant behavior.

2
Concept of job insecurity

Job insecurity has been conceptualized and defined in a number of ways. Some view it

as a function of objective circumstances such as contract work that carries a specified

term of service (Bordia, Hunt, Paulsen, Tourish, and DiFonzo 2004; Pearce 1998). Still

many others regard job insecurity as a perceptual phenomenon that varies in intensity

even when employees are confronted by identical job threats (Greenhalgh and Rosenblatt

1984, Hartley et al. 1991). The scope and dimensions of job insecurity have also been

debated, some viewing it as a threat to a range of job features such as freedom to

schedule work or access to job resources (Ashford, Lee, and Bobko 1989; Blau, Tatum,

McCoy, Dobria, and Ward-Cook 2004; Lee, Bobko, and Chen 2006), while others have

constrained the meaning of job insecurity to the job itself (Caplan, Cobb, French, Van

Harrison, and Pinneau 1975). In line with general conceptualizations, Ransome (1998,

47) suggests that job insecurity draws its meaning from the importance of work in

contemporary society given that it is fundamentally linked to material and psychological

satisfaction . We also suggest that the job as a unit of analysis best expresses the notion

of fulfilling survival needs via the income that a job generates, whereas insecurity over

loss of valued job features is more akin to fulfilling human wants. Both insecurities may

have great importance to individuals, but the job (loss) has primacy in the context of

survival. Thus, we regard job insecurity as an individual-level perception specific to job

loss and define it as the perceived stability and continuance of one’s employment with an

organization (Probst 2003).

Job insecurity presents an indirect problem for organizations. It is an internal

perception of employees that becomes related to organizational outcomes as employees

3
go about their work while dealing with uncertainties of job retention. Employees do so

by summoning resources to do both their tasks and to respond to their perceived job

threat. The added burden of job is anxiety provoking to employees, decreases job

satisfaction, and ultimately represents a distraction that may negatively affect

performance and organizational productivity (Greenhalgh and Rosenblatt 1984).

Consequences of Job Insecurity

Our purpose in this research is to understand what transpires when managers experience

job insecurity. We draw on a recent meta-analysis of more than 70 published job

insecurity studies including over 38,000 respondents that found that job insecurity is

significantly and negatively related to job and organizational attitudes, to mental and

physical health, and has a negative effect on work performance (Sverke, Hellgren,

Näswall 2002). For example, the corrected correlation between job insecurity and job

satisfaction was r = -.41. Additionally, the same meta-analysis observed negative

relationships between job insecurity and job involvement (r = -.37, k = 4), organizational

commitment (r = -.41, k = 30), trust (r = -.50, k =8), mental health (r = -.24, k = 37),

performance (r = -.20, k = 12), and a positive relationship with turnover intentions (r =

.28, k = 26). Additional studies have also shown job insecurity to be related to worsened

safety compliance records (Probst and Brubaker 2001), to reduced effectiveness with a

firm’s key accounts (Reisel, Chia, and Maloles 2005), and predicts burnout among

married couples (Westman, Etzion, and Danon 2001).

The underpinnings of our model rely upon stress theory that describes events

(stressors) and probable psychological and behavioral reactions (Lazarus and Folkman

4
1984; Spector 2000). We included examples of each of these outcomes in the model.

While several of our hypotheses have been tested in prior research, the current research

adds to the literature in at least two unique ways. First, the relationship between job

insecurity and OCB and deviant behavior has not been thoroughly examined, and results

thus far have been inconsistent. For example, Feather and Rauter (2004) found that job

insecurity was related to higher levels of OCB, whereas Bultena (1998) found the

opposite to be true. Our research will add to that growing body of literature by testing a

more complex model of the relationships between job insecurity and these outcome

variables. Rather than simply investigating correlates of job insecurity, we test both direct

and mediating effects of job insecurity on these variables. As a result, our data may shed

some light on why earlier research found apparently contradictory results.

A second advantage of the current research is gained through the use of both self-

report and independent assessments of employee levels of job satisfaction, OCB, and

deviant behavior. This use of multiple methods to measure some of our primary

dependent variables helps us to avoid the pitfalls experienced by earlier research due to

potential mono-method bias. The variables included in our study and the relationships

among them are presented in Figure 1.

Insert Figure 1 About Here

Job satisfaction is one of the most commonly researched attitudinal outcomes of job

insecurity (Sverke, Hellgren, and Näswall 2006). Job satisfaction is an emotional state

resulting from the evaluation or appraisal of one’s job experiences (Locke 1976). The

relationship between job insecurity and job satisfaction is understandable because jobs

provide numerous sources of satisfaction such as economic stability, social contacts, and

5
self-efficacy (De Witte 1999). Prior research has already shown that job insecurity is

directly related to lowered job satisfaction (Ashford et al. 1989). Job insecurity is the

general perception of job continuation; job satisfaction is the general favorable view of

the overall job. Associations between general constructs are much stronger than between

those of general and specific constructs such as facets of job satisfaction, e.g. pay

satisfaction, or features of job insecurity, e.g. pay and promotion prospects. Two recent

meta-analyses offer support for strength of associations between general constructs

(Harrison, Newman, and Roth 2006; Judge, Thoresen, Bono, and Patton 2001). We

expect the same pattern of evidence in this research. Thus, we hypothesize that:

H1: Job insecurity is negatively related to job satisfaction.

Although we are not providing a test of causal relationships, we reason that job

insecurity will primarily influence employee attitudes about their jobs (e.g. job

satisfaction), whereas behaviors and certain affective responses occur as a consequence

of job satisfaction. We base this assumption on Sverke et al. (2002), who conjecture that

the effects of job insecurity may be categorized as immediate and long-term. Job

attitudes, such as job satisfaction are short-term consequences, whereas behavioral

responses are long-term effects. Researchers have shown that job insecurity should

arouse stronger emotional and physiological effects the longer it endures (De Witte 1999;

Ferrie, Shipley, Marmot, Stansfeld, and Smith 1998). That is, job insecurity acts as a

stressor that intensifies over time when acceptable resolution to the problem is not

forthcoming. Given the timing of effects described in theory and demonstrated in

evidence, we expect that the influence of job insecurity will be manifested first on job

6
satisfaction, which will then act as a mediator of subsequent long-term effects.

Therefore, our second hypothesis is:

H2: Job satisfaction mediates the effect of job insecurity on behavioral and

affective responses such as H2a…H2b…H2c…... (Each of the five possible

mediations deserves an independent test. This means five sub hypotheses).

Our third and fourth hypotheses predict that the indirect negative effects of job

insecurity should decrease the performance of behaviors valued by the organization and

increase behaviors that are counterproductive to the organization. Our rationale for this

expectation is grounded in exchange theories, which hold that employees who experience

job satisfaction are likely to reciprocate through behaviors that contribute to the

organization (Barnard 1938; Mount, Ilies, and Johnson 2006; Rousseau 1995), and by

contrast, perform behaviors that detract from the organization when they are dissatisfied

(Dalal 2005). We selected organizational citizenship behavior (OCB), as an example of

valued behaviors, which is defined as individual behavior that is discretionary, not

directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and that in aggregate

promotes the effective functioning of the organization (Organ 1988). Examples include

sharing ideas with co-workers or belonging to outside groups to benefit the organization

(Van Dyne, Graham, and Dienesch 1994).

There have been very few studies linking job insecurity to OCB; what research

has been conducted has primarily investigated zero-order relationships between the two

variables. Nevertheless, recent evidence suggests that OCB may increase in response to

job insecurity, and that this may be particularly true if employees have a contingent (e.g.,

contract) employment relationship with their organization. In a study conducted in

7
Australia among both permanent teachers and contract teachers, OCBs were more

strongly related to job insecurity among contract teachers than among permanent teachers

(Feather and Rauter 2004). This suggests that contract employees may perform OCBs as

a means of securing their position. Although job insecurity may be directly related to an

increase in OCB, as noted above, we expect that job satisfaction will mediate the effects

of job insecurity on OCB. In particular, part-time MBA managers, who are the focus of

our research, may have little incentive to perform OCB as their jobs are already

permanent. Reducing discretionary inputs such as OCB is a form of behavioral

withdrawal over which employees have control and face limited accountability. The same

is less true of task behaviors for which there are stated goals and performance metrics.

The notion of withholding inputs such as OCB is consistent with the inducements-

contributions principle of March and Simon’s work (1958) as well as reactions to

inequity (Adams 1965). Thus, we hypothesize that job insecurity will have an indirect

negative affect on OCB via a decrease in job satisfaction.

H3: Lower levels of job satisfaction are related to decreased enactment of

organizational citizenship behaviors.

We also investigated deviant behavior, which is defined as voluntary behavior

that violates significant organizational norms and, in doing so, threatens the well-being of

the organization or its members, or both (Bennett and Robinson 2000). To the best of our

knowledge, there has been no examination of the relationship between job insecurity and

deviant behavior using job satisfaction as a mediating variable. Evidence from an earlier

study found a positive correlation of .34 between job insecurity and deviant behavior

(Lim 1996). In this study, deviant behavior includes coming late to work, not working

8
hard as you can, or taking longer than permitted breaks. Recently, Robinson and Bennett

(1995) distinguished between deviant behaviors that are organization-directed (e.g.,

stealing money from a cash register) versus those that are individual directed (e.g.,

stealing money from a co-worker). In this article we focus on deviant behavior that

affects the organization as opposed to individuals. Deviant behavior is discretionary and

counterproductive and is thought be a reaction to employee perceptions of injustice

and/or dissatisfactions as well as other factors (Bennett and Robinson 2000). Employees

who perform deviant behavior are retaliating “against dissatisfying conditions and unjust

workplaces by engaging in behavior that harms the organization and/or other employees”

(Dalal 2005, 1243). Accordingly, our fourth hypothesis follows:

H4: Job dissatisfaction is positively related to deviant behavior.

Our final hypotheses examine affective responses to job insecurity. It is not

surprising that strong emotional responses will emerge as employees endure protracted

periods of job insecurity. As noted recently, “most studies that have examined the effects

of self-reported job insecurity on health have documented consistent adverse effects on

measures of psychological morbidity” (Ferrie, Shipley, Newman, Stansfeld, and Marmot

2005, 1593). In this study, we expect that satisfaction will also mediate the effect of job

insecurity on anxiety, anger, and burnout.

As mentioned earlier, job insecurity is an added cognitive burden for employees.

They have yet to be let go but are thinking about it while still being required to do their

jobs. It is this enduring and uncertain set of conditions that may tend to heighten stress

and susceptibility to negative emotions (Roskies and Louis-Guerin 1990; Strazdins,

D’Souza, Lim, Broom, and Rodgers 2004). Therefore, our fifth hypothesis is:

9
 H5: Job satisfaction mediates the effect of job insecurity on anxiety, such that

dissatisfaction resulting from insecurity results in higher anxiety levels.

Job insecurity is threatening to individuals because it is an anticipation of an

involuntary job change. Whether severance results or not, the employee is likely to feel

angry about the change as has been suggested in the literature addressing psychological

contract violations (Rousseau 1995). Our expectation of anger reactions is further

grounded in empirical evidence that negatively associates job satisfaction and anger

(Chen and Spector 1991). Thus, our sixth hypothesis states that:

H6: Job satisfaction mediates the effect of job insecurity on anger, such that

dissatisfaction resulting from insecurity results in higher anger levels.

Our final hypothesis looks at burnout, which is defined as the feeling of being

extended beyond one’s resources (Maslach and Jackson 1986). Burnout represents a

state of emotional exhaustion towards work comprising negative feelings that generalize

to the organization, its members, and to the tasks for which one is responsible. In the

context of job insecurity research, burnout has been found to be a consequence of long-

term uncertainties associated with job insecurity (Dekker and Schaufeli 1995). As

already indicated, the negative influence of job insecurity appears to intensify over time.

This means that individuals who are confronted by job insecurity experience stress that

has the effect of wearing them down, eventually draining them of energy. Consequently,

our final hypothesis is:

H7: Job satisfaction mediates the effect of job insecurity on burnout, such that

dissatisfaction resulting from insecurity results in higher burnout levels.

10
Methods

Participants and procedure

Data collection was conducted in the spring of 2006 as part of a program of study for

part-time MBAs attending graduate schools in the south-west and west coast of the U.S.

All respondents (N = 320) were assured of confidentiality, could skip survey items or

sections if uncomfortable, and received course credit for participating. We chose part-

time MBAs because they work during the day and attend school at night. Thus, they are

committed to maintaining a work relationship with their employer, but also are trying to

develop additional skills that can be used in their workplace. Given the amount of effort

these students devote to their employer (via work and additional professional

development and training via the MBA program), we wanted to know what happens

when these MBAs may harbor perceptions that their job is insecure.

The participants were working professionals averaging 35.7 years old. Sixty-six

percent of the respondents were male (210) and 34 percent were female (110). On

average, the participants worked 43.5 hours per week and had been employed by their

present firm for an average of 4.28 years.

Self-report measures

Participants completed an electronic self-report questionnaire that included the main

variables in the research along with demographic information. All items were presented

using a 5-point Likert-type scale, ranging from ‘strongly agree’ to ‘strongly disagree’.

11
Item responses were coded such that higher numbers reflect higher levels of the variables

described below.

Job insecurity: Job insecurity was measured with 3 items from a global measure

of job insecurity developed by Francis and Barling (2005). The coefficient alpha

reliability in the current research was .80. A sample item is “I am afraid I may lose my

current job.”

Job satisfaction: Four items were drawn from Judge, Scott, and Ilies (2006)

performance in the market scale. The reliability as measured by coefficient alpha in the

current research was .92. A sample item is “I am enthusiastic about my work.”

Organizational citizenship behavior: Three items from the OCB scale developed

by Van Dyne, Graham, and Dienesch (1994) were used. A sample item is “I share ideas

for new projects or improvements widely”. The reliability as measured by coefficient

alpha in the current research was .69.

Deviant behavior: Four items were used for this variable originated with Bennett

and Robinson (2000). A sample item is “I come in late to work without permission if I

feel like it”. The reliability as measured by coefficient alpha in the current research was

.80.

Anxiety, anger, and burnout: Emotional reactions were measured by single items

(Caplan et al. 1975). Subjects were prompted to rate three emotions (anxious, angry, and

burnt out by work) with the statement: “At work these days more than in the past, I have

felt…”.

Independent Measures

12
This study is unique in that it assesses these variables using both self-reported and

independent measures of the outcomes. This reduces the potential effects of common

method variance, which has been a frequent problem with earlier studies of outcomes of

job insecurity (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, and Podsakoff 2003). Of the 320 students, 97

participated in electronic discussion groups as part of a required class project. The other

223 students did not attend this specific course that utilized e-discussion groups and

therefore did not provide relevant data for these subsequent analyses.

There was an extensive log of comments made by subjects, who frequently

described their levels of job satisfaction and enactment of organizational citizenship

behaviors and/or deviant behavior. A total of 910 student comments (over 10 Megabytes

of text) were content coded by two trained raters on the following dimensions: (1)

relevance; (2) job satisfaction; (3) organizational citizenship behaviors; and (4)

organizational deviant behavior.

Analyses.

Multiple sets of analyses were conducted to test the study’s hypotheses. First, we used

structural equation modeling to analyze the self-reported data from the complete sample

of 320 participants. Using AMOS 6.0 (Arbuckle 2005), we followed the two-step data

analyses process recommended by Anderson and Gerbing (1988), in which the

measurement model was first fit to the data followed by the structural model developed

from the study’s hypotheses shown in Figure 1. Additionally, to test the extent to which

the effects of job insecurity were fully mediated by job satisfaction, two additional

alternative models were tested: the first (Alternative Model 1) allowed for only direct

effects of job insecurity on the outcome variables (i.e., non-mediation model), whereas

13
the second (Alternative Model 2) allowed both indirect (i.e., mediated) effects as well as

direct effects of job insecurity on the outcomes. Because models with more freed paths

would have better fit statistics, a sequential Chi-square was computed to assess whether

any improvement in fit was statistically significant (i.e., not merely due to additional

freed paths).

In the second set of analyses, the content analysis based? ratings of job

satisfaction, OCBs, and deviant behavior were first assessed to determine if there were

sufficiently high levels of inter-rater agreement. Each rater independently assessed a

total of 910 participant comments on each of the 4 dimensions (relevance, job

satisfaction, OCBs and deviant behavior). In other words, each rater independently made

3,640 ratings (i.e., 910 comments x 4 dimensions).

Results indicate that the raters exhibited a high degree of agreement with respect

to whether particular participants’ comments were relevant to the study (% Agreement =

.96). The percent agreement for job satisfaction ratings was .68. Finally, the percent

agreements for OCBs and for deviant behavior were .67 and .97, respectively. In the

third set of analyses, regression was used to determine the extent to which the self-

reported measure of job insecurity predicted the independently rated measure of job

satisfaction, and the extent to which job satisfaction in turn predicted OCBs and deviant

behavior. It should also be noted that due to the small sample size for which ratings were

available, the observed power to detect significant effects was rather low for job

satisfaction (.19) and deviant behavior (.38), although the observed power was improved

for OCBs (.94). As a result, we primarily relied upon measures of effect size rather than

p-values when interpreting the regression results..

14
Results

Table 1 provides the zero-order correlations among the self-reported measures, along

with descriptive statistics and scale alpha coefficients.

Insert Table 1 about here

As expected, job insecurity was negatively related to job satisfaction, and job satisfaction

was positively related to OCBs, but negatively related to deviant behavior and anxiety,

anger, and burnout.

Structural Equation Modeling Results

Table 2 presents the fit statistics for the measurement, structural, and two alternative

models.

Insert Table 2 about here

As can be seen, the fit statistics from the test of the measurement model indicate a very

good fit and provide support for the construct validity of the instruments used in the

study. Given these results, we next turned to the proposed and alternative structural

models.

As shown in Table 2, while the fit of all the structural models was quite good,

Alternative Model 2 offered the best fit compared to both the Proposed Model, 12seq(5) =

23.10, p < .01 and Alternative Model 1, 12seq(1) = 17.80, p < .01. This suggests that the

best model is the one that allows for both direct and mediated effects of job insecurity on

our outcomes of interest. Therefore, the results of our original hypotheses are later

discussed in light of these findings. Path coefficients from Alternative Model 2 can be

seen in Figure 2.

Insert Figure 2 about here

15
As predicted by Hypothesis 1, job insecurity was negatively related to job satisfaction

(path coefficient = -.25). Hypotheses 2 through 7 predicted that the effects of job

insecurity on organizational outcomes would be fully mediated by job satisfaction.

However, because Alternative Model 2 (which also allowed direct effects of job

insecurity on the outcomes) was shown to have statistically improved fit over the fully

mediated model, it appears that job satisfaction only partially mediated the effects of job

insecurity and that direct effects must be taken into account as well. Specifically, both job

satisfaction (.42) and job insecurity (-.15) were significant predictors of OCBs.

Additionally, job insecurity and job satisfaction both predicted anxiety (.18 and.-28,

respectively), anger (.16 and -.51, respectively), and deviant organizational behaviors (.11

and -.26). However, only job satisfaction predicted burnout (-.43).

Regression Analysis Results

The regression analysis indicated that self-report job insecurity perceptions were

negatively related to independent ratings of job satisfaction (2 = -.11) accounting for

1.3% of the variance in job satisfaction ratings. Independent ratings of job satisfaction

were positively associated with OCBs (2 = .34) accounting for 12% of the variance and

negatively related to deviant behavior (2 = -.17) accounting for 3% of the variance.

Notably, these beta-weights are consistent in size and direction with the path coefficients

from the initial SEM analyses that relied solely on self-report measures.

Discussion

16
(Your main finding is that when it comes to behaviors a mediated model provides a better

explanation. When it comes to emotions the direct model provides better explanations.

Please discuss what theory says about it and what what could be the reasons for that.)

This article tested a model of the effects of job insecurity on job satisfaction,

organizational citizenship behavior, deviant behavior, anxiety, anger, and burnout. We

hypothesized that the effects of job insecurity on the outcomes would be mediated by job

satisfaction. The model tests using structural equation and regression analyses largely

supported the hypotheses in the study. We found that job insecurity is negatively related

to job satisfaction and that job satisfaction partially mediates the effects of job insecurity

on the outcomes we investigated. However, our alternative model that also fitted direct

paths from job insecurity to the dependent variables better fit the data than our original

hypothesized structural model (see Table 2). This suggests that there are important direct

effects of job insecurity on the outcome variables, in addition to those effects mediated

by job satisfaction.

Theoretical implications

The model we tested replicated known relationships between job insecurity and job

satisfaction (Sverke, et al. 2002) and between job insecurity and negative emotions:

anger, anxiety, and burnout (Dekker and Schaufeli 1995; Roskies and Louis-Guerin

1990; Rousseau 1995; Strazdins, D’Souza, Lim, Broom, and Rodgers 2004). We also

simultaneously examined two related but distinct sets of withdrawal behaviors:

organizational citizenship behavior and deviant behavior.

Beginning with the unique contribution of this research, we found that job

insecurity was viewed by our sample of managers as a source of dissatisfaction and this

17
was associated with deviant behaviors such as less effort on the job, working more

slowly, taking longer breaks than permitted, and coming in later than allowed. As

pointed by Dalal (2005) and Harrison, et al. (2006) deviant behavior signals a progression

of attitudinal withdrawal that becomes behaviorally manifest as employees cut back on

discretionary inputs into the organization. This result is a central theme of equity theory,

which emphasizes the human motivation to achieve fairness in exchange (Adams, 1965).

We speculate that employees perform deviant behavior as an equity adjustment

because the costs to them are violation of organizational norms, which are, by definition,

less formal than rules. Consequently, the deviant behaviors we examined are largely

discretionary outcomes as opposed to behaviors on tasks or goals for which formal

scrutiny increases the cost to employees who willfully under-perform.

We also hypothesized and found support for the negative relationship between job

insecurity and organizational citizenship behavior. This effect is both direct and indirect

through job satisfaction and is consistent with earlier findings of research conducted with

contract and permanent teachers (Feather, et al. 2004). Like permanent teachers who

reduced their OCBs when faced with job insecurity, our managers (also permanent

employees), reduced their OCBs as their job insecurity increased. They are not required

to perform OCBs so these behaviors appear to diminish in the presence of job insecurity

perceptions.

These results fit a pattern of evidence from research conducted recently in China

that compared employee responses to job insecurity in state-owned enterprises and

private joint-venture organizations (Wong, Wong, Ngo, and Lui 2005). In that study, job

insecurity was found to be negatively associated with OCBs in the private joint ventures,

18
and positively associated with OCBs in the state-owned enterprises (SOE). The authors

interpreted this apparently mixed set of findings via an integration of rational choice

theory and social exchange theory. Job context, they reasoned, determines the

explanatory strength of the theory. In the private joint ventures, they argued that

employees were guided by relational attachments to their employers and job insecurity

perceptions represent a violation of trust, which prefigures a reduction in OCBs.

However, in the SOEs, employees were guided by rational choices because job insecurity

was not provided. SOE employee behavior was predicted by the transactional benefits

they received. These economic exchanges served as the driver of employee attachment

and they were sufficient to increase OCBs even when their employment situation was

insecure. Pearce (1998) reasoned similarly when she stated that objective circumstances

of job insecurity (e.g. contract work) are not, in and of themselves, predictive of negative

reactions to job insecurity. (All your respondents were permanent workers. So why do

you bring up the findings in China?) Rather, employee reactions may be related to

whether the contract work is engaged in voluntarily or not (All your respondents work

voluntarily). Workers assuming voluntary positions with limited contract periods may

have less severe reactions to their job insecurity than those who have no choice in the job

they’ve accepted. Thus, it appears that job insecurity does not have a simple relationship

with behavioral outcomes (This is not the conclusion of your research findings).. Rather,

one must take into account how job insecurity affects the employee’s job satisfaction and

whether the enactment of OCBs or deviant behavior will serve to potentially adapt to the

original stressor (i.e., job insecurity) or not. Taken in full, our evidence supports a

consistent view of discretionary behavioral reactions to job insecurity. Our managers

19
reported doing more of the things that detract from organizational purpose (deviant

behavior) and less of the things that positively support organizational purpose (OCBs).

We also looked at affective responses to job insecurity and found that job

satisfaction mediated the effects of job insecurity on anxiety, anger and burnout. Job

insecurity also had direct effects on anxiety and anger, but a non-significant effect on

burnout. Again, we were not surprised by these results (so what is the significance of the

results?) given the likely emotional reactions that managers will have to finding their jobs

threatened. Although job insecurity was not directly related to burnout, the research

design limits our ability to understand the actual extent of burnout, which occurs after an

extensive period of strain.

What is the significance of the affirmation of model 2 in your study as compared

with model 1? What improvements (specificity, generalization) have you made to theory

of job insecurity?)

Limitations and Future Research

Because this research relies on cross-sectional data, conclusions are not possible

regarding the causal nature of our research model. Future researchers should consider

longitudinal research designs to address this shortcoming. Such an approach would

greatly aid our understanding of the job insecurity process, particularly in light of the fact

that behavioral reactions to job insecurity are likely to unfold over time as employees

gauge and react to their job threat.

Further, this research makes a fairly general statement about outcomes of job

insecurity as the sample was comprised of subjects from many different firms. It would

be useful to offer greater contextual understanding of the job insecurity-outcomes

20
process. For example, we may suspect that managers with strong leadership skills who

are included in high-level managerial networks are going to see more of what is

happening and be well-positioned to avoid job threats (Rosenblatt and Schaeffer 2001).

Thus, the effects we observed in this study may not apply to all managers.

The practical implication of this research is that job insecurity acts as a clear

source of job dissatisfaction, negative emotions, and is associated with a pattern of

discretionary withdrawal behaviors which is evident in reduced positive inputs (OCB)

and increased negative inputs (deviant behavior). Because this research is the first to

measure OCB and deviant behavior simultaneously, it is not established how long such a

pattern can be expected to persist in the face of job insecurity, nor what may act to

moderate the effects. We can speculate on the basis of information seeking research (see

Brockner, DeWitt, Grover, and Reed 1990) that managers will react poorly to uncertainty

given job threats and that it is advisable to mitigate negative reactions by offering clear

statements from the senior most officers of the firm about what is to be expected. This

should aid in moderating the uncertainty that has long been associated with job

insecurity, thereby addressing and reducing the negative effects we observed. Short of

this, the current research serves notice that job insecurity perceptions continue to have

strong negative associations with outcomes that are counterproductive to organizational

purpose.

21
References

Adams, J. S. 1965. “Inequity in Social Exchange.” In Advances in Experimental Social

Psychology, ed. L. Berkowitz, 267-299. New York: Academic Press.

Anderson, J.C. and D. W. Gerbing. 1988. “Structural Equation Modeling in Practice: A

Review and Two-Step Approach.” Psychological Bulletin 103, 411-423.

Arbuckle, J. L. 2005. Amos 6.0 User’s Guide. Spring House, PA: AMOS Development
Corporation.

Ashford, S. J., C. L. Lee, and P. Bobko .1989. “Content, Causes, and Consequences of
Job Insecurity: A Theory-Based Measure and Substantive Test.” Academy of
Management Journa, 32, 803-829.

Barnard, C. I. 1938. The Functions of the Executive. Cambridge: Harvard University

Press.

Bennett, R. J. and Robinson, S. L. 2000. “Development of a measure of workplace

deviance”. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 349-360.

Blau, G., Tatum, D. S., McCoy, K., Dobria, L., and Ward-Cook, K. 2004. “Job loss,
human capital job feature, and work condition job feature as distinct job
insecurity constructs”. Journal of Allied Health, 33, 31-41.

Bordia, P. Hunt, E., Paulsen, N., Tourish, D., and DiFonzo, N. 2004. “Uncertainty during
organizational change: Is it all about control”? European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology,13, 345-365.

Brockner, J. 1988. “Managing the effects of layoffs on survivors”. California

Management Review, 34, 9-28.

Brockner, J., DeWitt, R. L., Grover, S., and Reed, T. 1990. “When it is especially
important to explain why: Factors affecting the relationship between managers’
explanations of a layoff and survivors’ reactions to the layoff”. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 26, 389-407.

Bultena, C. D. 1998. “Social exchange under fire: Direct and moderated effects of job
insecurity on social exchange”. Dissertation Abstracts International, 59(4-B), p.
1894.

Bureau of Labor Statistics 2008. http://www.bls.gov/mls/

Burke, R. J. and Cooper, C. L. 2000. The Organization in Crisis: Downsizing,

Restructuring, and Privatization. Oxford: Blackwell.

22
Caplan, R. D., Cobb, S., French, J. R. P., Jr., Van Harrison, R. and Pinneau, S. R., Jr.
1975. “Job demands and worker health: Main effects and occupational
differences”. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health, Education and
Welfare.

Chen, P. Y. and Spector, P. E. 1991. “Negative affectivity as the underlying cause of

correlations between stressors and strains”. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76,
398-407.

Dalal, R. S. 2005. “A meta-analysis of the relationship between organizational

citizenship behavior and counterproductive work behavior”. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 90, 1241-1255.

Dekker, S. W. A. and Schaufeli, W. B. 1995. “The effects of job insecurity on

psychological health and withdrawal: A longitudinal study”. Australian
Psychologist, 30, 57-63.

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, 155-177.

Feather, N. T. , and Rauter, K. A. 2004. “Organizational citizenship behaviours in

relation to job status, job insecurity, organizational commitment and
identification, job satisfaction and work values”. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 77, 81-94.

Ferrie, J. E., Shipley, M. J., Newman, K., Stansfeld, S. A., and Marmot, M. 2005. “Self-
reported job insecurity and health in the Whitehall II study: potential
explanations of the relationship”. Social Science and Medicine, 60, 1593-1602.

Ferrie, J.E., Shipley, M.J., Marmot, M., Stansfeld, S. A., and Smith, G. 1998. “The
health effects of major organizational change and job insecurity”. Social Science
and Medicine, 46, 243-254.

Francis, L. and Barling, J. 2005. “Organizational injustice and psychological strain”.

Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 37, 250-261.

GMAC 2006. “Corporate Recruiters Survey”. www.gmac.com

Greenhalgh, L. and Rosenblatt, Z. 1984). “Job insecurity: Toward conceptual

Clarity”. Academy of Management Review, 9, 438-448.

Harrison, D. A., Newman, D. A., and Roth, P. L. 2006. “How important are job
attitudes? Meta-analytic comparisons of integrative behavioral outcomes and
time sequences”. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 305-325.

23
Hartley, J., Jacobson, D., Klandermans, B., and van Vuuren, T. 1991. Job Insecurity:
Coping with Jobs at Risk. London: Sage Publications.

Hellgren, J., and Sverke, M. 2003. “Does job insecurity lead to impaired well-being or
vice versa? Estimation of cross-lagged effects using latent variable modeling”.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 215-236.

Ironson, G.H. 1992. “Job stress and health”. In Cranny, C.J., Smith, P.C., & Stone, E.F.
(Eds.) Job Satisfaction: How people feel about their jobs and how it affects their
performance. New York: Lexington Books.

Judge, T. A. and Hulin, C. L. 1993. “Job satisfaction as a reflection of disposition: A

multiple source causal analysis”. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 56, 388-421.

Judge, T. A., Scott, B. A., and Ilies, R. 2006. “Hostility, job attitudes, and workplace
deviance: Test of a multilevel model”. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 126-
138.

Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Bono, J. E., and Patton, G. K. 2001. “The job satisfaction-
job performance relationship: A qualitative and quantitative review”.
Psychological Bulletin, 127, 376-407.

Kivimaki, M., Vahtera, J., Pentti, J., and Ferrie, J. E. 2000. “Factors underlying the effect
of organizational downsizing on health of employees: Longitudinal cohort
study”. British Medical Journal, 320, 971-975.

Lazarus, R. S. and Folkman, S. 1984. Stress Appraisal and Coping. New York:
Springer.

Lee, C., Bobko, P., and Chen, Z. X. 2006. “Investigation of the multidimensional model
of job insecurity in China and the USA”. Applied Psychology: An International
Review. 55, 512-540.

Lim, V. K.G. 1996. Job insecurity and its outcomes: Moderating effects of work-based
and nonwork-based social support”. Human Relations, 49, 171-194.

Locke, E. A. 1976. “Job satisfaction and job performance: A theoretical analysis”.

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 5, 484-500.

Maslach, C., and Jackson, S. 1986. Maslach Burnout Inventory. Palo Alto, CA:
Consulting Psychologists Press.

March, J. G. and Simon, H. A. 1958. Organizations (3rd ed.). New York: Wiley.

24
Mount, M., Ilies, R., and Johnson, E. 2006. “Relationship of personality traits and
counterproductive work behaviors: The mediating effects of job satisfaction”.
Personnel Psychology, 59, 591-626.

Organ, D. W. 1988. Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Good Soldier Syndrome.

Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Pearce, J. L. 1998. “Job insecurity is important but not for the reasons you might think:
The example of contingent workers”. In C. L. Cooper & D. M. Rousseau (Eds.),
Trends in Organizational Behavior (Vol. 5, pp. 31-46). New York: Wiley.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., and Podsakoff, N. P. 2003. “Common method

biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and
recommended remedies”. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879-903.

Probst, T., and Brubaker, T. L. 2001. “The effects of job insecurity on employee safety
outcomes: Cross-sectional and longitudinal explorations”. Journal of
Occupational and Health Psychology, 6, 139-159.

Probst, T. M. 2003. “Development and validation of the Job Security Index and the Job
Security Satisfaction Scale: A classical test theory and IRT approach”. Journal
of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 76, 451-467.

Ransome, P. 1998. “Conceptualizing job insecurity”. Management Research News, 21,

46-47.

Reisel, W. D., Chia, S. L., and Maloles, C. M. 2005. “Job Insecurity Spillover to Key
Account Management: Negative Effects of Performance, Effectiveness,
Adaptiveness, and Esprit de Corps”. Journal of Business and Psychology, 19, 483-
503.

Right Management Consultants 2006. “The Most Desired Skills In New Senior-Level
Execs Are Ability To Motivate, Engage & Communicate With Workers”.
http://www.corporate-
ir.net/ireye/ir_site.zhtml?ticker=rht&script=410&layout=0&item_id=803216.

Robinson, S. and Bennett, R. 1995. “A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: A

multi-dimensional scaling study”. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 555-
572.

Roskies, E. and Louis-Guerin, C. 1990. Job insecurity in managers: Antecedents and

consequences. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14, 617-630.

Rosenblatt, Z. and Sheaffer, Z. 2001. “Brain drain in declining organizations: Toward a

research agenda”. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 22, 409-424.

25
Rousseau, D. M. 1995. Psychological Contracts in Organizations: Understanding
written and unwritten agreements. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Spector, P. E. 2000. “A control theory of the job stress process”. In C. L. Cooper (Ed.),
Theories of Organizational Stress (ppp. 153-169). Oxford: University Press.

Strazdins, L., D’Souza, R. M., Lim, L. L.-Y, Broom, D. H., and Rodgers, B. 2004. “Job
strain, job insecurity, and Health, Rethinking the relationship”. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, 9, 296-305.

Sverke, M., Hellgren, J., and Näswall, K. 2002. No security: A meta-analysis and
review of job insecurity and its consequences. Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, 7, 242-264.

Sverke, M., Hellgren, J., and Näswall, K. 2006. “Job insecurity: A literature review”.
SALTSA—Joint Programme for working life research in Europe, Report No 1, 1-
30.

Van Dyne, L., Graham, J. W., and Dienesch, R. M. 1994. “Organizational citizenship
behavior: Construct redefinition, measurement, and validation”. Academy of
Management Journal, 37, 765-802.

Westman, M., Etzion, D., and Danon, E. 2001. “Job insecurity and crossover of burnout
in married couples”. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 467-481.

Wong, Y. Wong, C., Ngo, H., and Lui, H. 2005. “Different responses to job insecurity of
Chinese workers in joint ventures and state-owned enterprises”. Human Relations,
58, 1391–1418.

26
Table 1
Descriptive statistics, scale reliabilities, and inter-item correlations
between job insecurity and variables in the study (n = 320)

Variables Mea s.d 1 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

n .
1. Job Insecurity .90 .80
2.21
2. Job Satisfaction 3.33 1.06 .92 -.24**
3. OCB 3.67 .77 .69 -.25** .43**
4. Deviant Behavior 2.09 .86 .80 .07 -.18** -.21**
5. Anxiety 3.02 1.21 - .22** -.31** -.18** .07
6. Anger 2.69 1.13 - .26** -.54** -.26** .12* .59**
7. Burnout 2.95 1.23 - .13* -.43** -.12* .08 .44** .55**
*p < .05
**p < .01

27
Table 2
Fit statistics for measurement and structural models (n=97?)

Model 12 df 12/df NFI CFI RMSEA

Measurement Model 141.2 90 1.57 .95 .98 .04

Proposed Structural Model 185.5 96 1.93 .93 .97 .05
Alternative Model 1 180.2 92 1.96 .93 .97 .06
Alternative Model 2 162.4 91 1.79 .94 .97 .05

28
 Organizational
Citizenship
Behavior

H3+

Deviant Behavior

H2 H4 -

H1 - H5 -
Job Insecurity Job Satisfaction Anxiety

H6 -

H7 -
Anger

Burnout

Figure 1. Proposed model of the effects of job insecurity on satisfaction,

organizational citizenship behavior, deviant behavior, and emotions

29
 Organizational
Citizenship
-.15 Behavior

Job Insecurity .11

.18 Deviant Behavior

.16
.06
-.25
Anxiety
.42 -.26

-.28

Job Satisfaction -.51 Anger

-.43

Burnout

Standardized solution (maximum likelihood estimates) for the mediated affects of job
insecurity on outcomes (N = 320). Paths indicate standardized betas. Betas of .11 or
higher are significant at p < .01. Fit indices are: 12 = 162.4, p = .01 ; NFI = .94; CFI =
.97; RMSEA = .05.

Figure 2. An alternative model - direct and mediated effects of job insecurity on

satisfaction, organizational citizenship behavior, deviant behavior and emotions.

30

View publication stats