Explore the vast range of titles available.

Radical transformations in the current work model induce qualitative job insecurity (i.e., a threat to job characteristics) and strengthen quantitative job insecurity (i.e., a threat to job loss). Both dimensions are separate yet interdependent work stressors. Although organisational changes are often the core source for both types of job insecurity, it is predominantly a subjective experience—individual perception ultimately determines the risk and the consequences of these threats. So far, the between-person analysis suggests that the relationship between the two dimensions is in both directions. However, it is not clear whether these associations also reflect within-person processes. This study proposes and tests the reciprocal relationship between quantitative and qualitative job insecurity at the within-person level. We employed a multiple indicator random-intercept cross-lagged panel model (RI-CLPM) to test these associations within-person while controlling for between-person differences. We used three-wave longitudinal data (6 months’ time lag) collected from a Belgian working population (N = 3694). The results suggest a unidirectional relationship (from quantitative to qualitative job insecurity). Furthermore, the results reveal significant within-person carry-over effects of quantitative job insecurity but not for qualitative job insecurity. Overall, these results suggest that a change in the experience of threats to job loss (i.e., higher-than-usual quantitative job insecurity) not only anticipates higher-than-usual threats to job loss (autoregressive paths) but also higher-than-usual threats to job characteristics (i.e., qualitative job insecurity), six months later. This study contributes to the ongoing discussion on how job insecurity dimensions influence each other. Given these results and the continuous changes to how we work, we call for further research to better understand the within-person processes of job insecurity development.

Prior cross-sectional research indicates that the negative effects of quantitative job insecurity (i.e., threat to job loss) on employees’ wellbeing are fully mediated by qualitative job insecurity (i.e., threat to job characteristics). In the current longitudinal study, we replicated and further extended this view to include a direct effect of qualitative job insecurity on quantitative job insecurity. We explored these reciprocal relations in the context of their concurrent effects on work related outcomes by means of dual-mediation modelling. We identified a wide range of the outcomes, classified as: job strains (i.e., exhaustion, emotional and cognitive impairment), psychological coping reactions (i.e., job satisfaction, work engagement, turnover intention), and behavioral coping reactions (i.e., in-role and extra role performance, counterproductive behavior). We employed a three-wave panel design and surveyed 2003 Flemish employees. The results showed that the dual-mediation model had the best fit to the data. However, whereas qualitative job insecurity predicted an increase in quantitative job insecurity and the outcome variables six months later, quantitative job insecurity did not affect qualitative job insecurity or the outcomes over time. The study demonstrates the importance of qualitative job insecurity not only as a severe work stressor but also as an antecedent of quantitative job insecurity. Herewith, we stress the need for further research on the causal relations between both dimensions of job insecurity.

Job insecurity has been widely associated with reduced constructive work behaviors; however, few researchers have taken counterproductive work behaviors into consideration when investigating job insecurity. From a retaliation perspective, we investigated whether qualitative and quantitative job insecurity increase or reduce employees' workplace deviance and how locus of control moderates these relationships. A survey was carried out with 263 participants from 40 firms in China, who completed mature, established scales, and hypotheses were tested using hierarchical regression modeling. The empirical results showed that quantitative job insecurity reduced organizational deviance and increased interpersonal deviance, whereas qualitative job insecurity increased both organizational and interpersonal deviance. Moreover, internal locus of control weakened the positive relationship between job insecurity and workplace deviance. Therefore, qualitative job insecurity was more detrimental than quantitative job insecurity in terms of workplace deviance, and both were more detrimental to those who are of an external locus of control.

Job insecurity characterizes academic work, with potential risks for the health, well-being, and personal lives of faculty. Notwithstanding, faculty with job insecurity experiences may still find academia conducive to pursuing personal fulfilment. As faculty experiences of psychological well-being may be coloured by insecurity, this study sought to qualitatively investigate the ways in which experiences of insecurity and psychological well-being co-occur. This study followed a questionnaire study of a representative sample of faculty in Swedish academia and their job insecurity perceptions, inviting the most insecure to participate. The participant group included 19 faculty from nine public Swedish higher education institutions. Transcripts of the semi-structured interviews were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis, guided by the six theoretical dimensions of psychological well-being. Two themes were developed: 1) Staying afloat?, and 2) I'm not yet where I'm supposed to be. These themes elucidate faculty experiences of managing their current work (and personal) situations, and reveal how faculty orient themselves in relation to their futures, pasts and presents. The findings demonstrate how experiences of insecurity co-exist with psychological well-being in constraining and enhancing faculty well-being. This reveals how psychological well-being involves a dynamic process of negotiation, especially during transitional periods.

PurposeThe purpose of this study was to extend our knowledge of the relationship between quantitative and qualitative job insecurity and performance. On the basis of stress theories, we hypothesised that qualitative job insecurity (QLJI) would mediate the negative effect of quantitative job insecurity (QTJI) on two different indicators of performance: task performance (TP) and counterproductive work behaviours (CPWBs). In addition, the authors hypothesised that the effect of QTJI on QLJI would be moderated by the economic sector (public vs private) in which employees worked. Therefore, the authors empirically tested a moderated mediation model via PROCESS.Design/methodology/approachParticipants were 431 employees from various Italian organisations. Data were collected using a self-report questionnaire measuring QTJI, QLJI, TP and CPWBs.FindingsThe results indicated that economic sector moderated the relationship between quantitative and QLJI. Both quantitative and QLJI were related to performance outcomes. Furthermore, QLJI mediated the effect of QTJI on TP and CPWB. However, this mediation was particularly apparent among employees in the private sector, supporting our hypothesised moderated mediation model.Practical implicationsThe results suggest that managers of private and public organisations need to apply different policies to reduce the impact of job insecurity on CPWBs and increase the TP of their employees.Originality/valueThis study attempted to examine the job insecurity–performance relationship in more depth. For the first time, the effects of both job insecurity dimensions on performance were simultaneously investigated, with economic sector as a moderator and QLJI as a mediator.

Flourishing, a construct encompassing optimal human functioning, is an indicator of well-being. The purpose of this study was to examine the direct and indirect effects of employees’ achievement goal orientation (mastery-approach, mastery-avoidance, performance-approach and performance-avoidance goal orientation) on flourishing, through the appraisal of quantitative (concerns about continued existence of the job) and qualitative (concerns about continued existence of important job features) job insecurity. Data were collected from 275 employees in an organization on the brink of a substantive downsizing. The results of structural equation modelling showed that mastery approach and—avoidance goal orientation positively predicted flourishing. Furthermore, flourishing was negatively predicted by qualitative job insecurity but not by quantitative job insecurity. Qualitative job insecurity mediated the effects of mastery- and performance-approach goal orientation on flourishing but the effects were not significant. Hence, in an environment with a substantial threat of job loss, a mastery goal orientation contributed directly to flourishing. Our results plead for more attention for the effects of achievement goal orientation and qualitative job insecurity on flourishing under uncertainty.

Given that qualitative and quantitative job insecurity represent two types of stressors with potentially different outcomes, this study builds upon the conservation of resources theory and the desperation principle to investigate how these distinct aspects of job insecurity contribute to different forms of interpersonal-oriented counterproductive work behaviors (CWBs). This contribution primarily occurs through the erosion of employees’ organization-based self-esteem (OBSE). Crucially, work redesign strategies may assist employees in alleviating workplace bottlenecks. We further highlight the buffering roles of job crafting strategies (promotion- and prevention-oriented job crafting) in the indirect relationships of job insecurity - OBSE - interpersonal-oriented CWBs. Using a time-lagged design, a sample of 316 full-time employees from various occupations in Taiwan completed three waves of questionnaire survey. The results emphasize a significant risk for employees experiencing job insecurity in the workplace, as the associated work stress could deplete their OBSE, potentially leading to interpersonal-oriented CWBs. Furthermore, we shed light on how employees can reduce this risk by leveraging job crafting strategies.

(1) Background: Work-related stress is a major contributor to human error. One significant workplace stressor is job insecurity, which has been linked to an increased likelihood of experiencing burnout. This, in turn, might affect human error, specifically attention-related cognitive errors (ARCES) and the ability to detect errors. ARCES can be costly for organizations and pose a safety risk. Equally detrimental effects can be caused by failure to detect errors before they can cause harm. (2) Methods: We gathered self-report and behavioral data from 148 employees working in educational, financial and medical sectors in China. We designed and piloted an error detection task in which employees had to compare fictitious customer orders to deliveries of an online shop. We tested for indirect effects using the PROCESS macro with bootstrapping (3) Results: Our findings confirmed indirect effects of job insecurity on both ARCES and the ability to detect errors via burnout. (4) Conclusions: The present research shows that job insecurity influences making and detecting errors through its relationship with burnout. These findings suggest that job insecurity could increase the likelihood for human error with potential implications for employees’ safety and the safety of others.

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to develop and validate a measure of job insecurity climate by: first, testing whether job insecurity climate and individual job insecurity are two separate constructs; and second, investigating the relative importance of individual job insecurity and job insecurity climate in predicting work-related and health-related outcomes. Design/methodology/approach - Data were collected by questionnaires in a simple stratified random sample of 1,380 white-collar workers in Sweden. The response rate was 56 percent. Findings - Confirmatory factor analyses showed that job insecurity climate was distinct from individual job insecurity. Four separate ridge regression analyses showed that qualitative job insecurity climate was a significant predictor of demands, work-family conflict, psychological distress, and poor self-rated health and that quantitative job insecurity climate predicted demands and work-family conflict. Research limitations/implications - The study is based on self-reports, which may involve common method bias. The cross-sectional study design limits the possibility to make causal inferences regarding the relationship between job insecurity climate and outcomes. Practical implications - Future studies may consider measuring job insecurity climate in line with a referent-shift model. Work environment surveys in organizations that include measures of individual job insecurity and job insecurity climate can provide practitioners with a fuller picture of the psychosocial work environment. Originality/value - The present study adds to previous research by introducing a new approach to measuring and conceptualizing job insecurity climate.

Given the conceptual differences between different types of job insecurity, it is important to distinguish qualitative job insecurity from quantitative job insecurity when examining their motivational consequences. Building on the approach and avoidance framework, we expect that quantitative job insecurity influences avoid-performance goal orientation (avoidance form of motivation) via psychological safety, whereas qualitative job insecurity influences learning goal orientation (approach form of motivation) via psychological meaningfulness. We also examine the moderating role of organizational justice in such effects. Using two-wave data collected from 281 employees in China, we found that quantitative job insecurity had a positive indirect effect on employee avoid-performance goal orientation via decreased psychological safety, whereas qualitative job insecurity had a negative indirect effect on employee learning goal orientation via decreased psychological meaningfulness. In addition, organizational justice buffered the direct effect of quantitative job insecurity on employee psychological safety and the subsequent indirect effect on employee avoid-performance goal orientation. However, organizational justice did not moderate the influence of qualitative job insecurity on employee outcomes. Our findings provide new insights into the motivational implications of job insecurity.