Dealing with temporariness. Generational effects on temporary agency workers’ employment relationships
| Published date | 13 November 2019 |
| Pages | 406-424 |
| Date | 13 November 2019 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-02-2018-0071 |
| Author | Filipa Sobral,Eddy S. Ng,Filipa Castanheira,Maria José Chambel,Bas Koene |
| Subject Matter | Hr & organizational behaviour,Global hrm |
Dealing with temporariness
Generational effects on temporary agency
workers’employment relationships
Filipa Sobral
CEDH, Faculdade de Educação e Psicologia,
Universidade Católica Portuguesa, Porto, Portugal
Eddy S. Ng
Freeman College of Management,
Bucknell University, Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, USA and
James Cook University, Singapore
Filipa Castanheira
Nova School of Business and Economics, Lisbon, Portugal
Maria José Chambel
Department of Human Resources, Work and Organizational Psychology,
Faculty of Psychology, University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal, and
Bas Koene
Department of Organisation and Personnel Management,
Rotterdam School of Management, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Abstract
Purpose –A major trendin the changing nature ofwork is the increasing use of temporaryworkers. Although
common among students, older employees have joined the ranks of temporary workers as they extend their
work lives. Temporary workers tend to report lower affective commitment and consequently poorer work
outcomes.However, different generationsof workers may conceivetemporary work differentlyfrom each other.
The purpose of this paper is to explore how different generations of temporary workers, respond to human
resource practices (HRP), which in turn influences their affective commitment and workperformance.
Design/methodology/approach –The sample is comprised of 3,876 temporary agency workers (TAWs)
from seven temporary employment agencies in Portugal. The authors undertook multiple group SEM
analyses to test a moderated mediation model that accounts for TAWs’affective commitment (toward the
agency and the client company) across three generations (Baby Boomers, Generation X and Millennials) in the
relationship between human resources practices and overall perceived performance.
Findings –After controlling for gender, age and tenure, the authors find generational differences in the
perceptions of HRP and perceived performance. The results support the moderator effect of generations in the
direct and indirect relationships –through both affective commitments –between TAWs’perceived HRP and
perceived performance.
Research limitations/implications –The cross-sectional design limits the possibility to make
causal inferences.
Originality/value –This study contributes to a better understanding of how different generations respond
to temporary employment relationships. The findings suggest important differences in the way in which the
same HRP system relates (directly and indirectly thorough affective commitment toward the client) with their
perceived performance across different generations.
Keywords Quantitative, Generations, Social exchange, Human resource practices,
Generational differences, Temporary/contingent workers
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Over the past few decades, our understanding of temporary or contingent employment
has changed. Since the 1980s, contingent work arrangements were associated with
economic expansion and short-term increases in production (Zimmerman et al., 2013).
Personnel Review
Vol. 49 No. 2, 2020
pp. 406-424
© Emerald PublishingLimited
0048-3486
DOI 10.1108/PR-02-2018-0071
Received 27 February 2018
Revised 25 May 2019
Accepted 9 July 2019
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0048-3486.htm
406
PR
49,2
Subsequently, the number of contingent workers has grown exponentially (Eurostat, 2019;
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2018) particularly with the use
of temporary agency workers (TAWs) (World Employment Confederation, 2019). TAWs
are no longer confined to an activity or sector (Buch et al., 2010). TAWs work alongside
employees who are directly hired (Burgess and Connell, 2006), and they are now considered
a regular component of many organizations’labor force (Koene et al., 2014). As a result, their
work attitudes and performance are equally critical for a firm’s success.
Complementing this trend, the changing nature of work also shapes the work attitudes
and expectations across different generations of workers (Ng and Parry, 2016). Since the
1990s, contingent workers were no longer just working students or individuals seeking a
supplement to their main activity (Feldman et al., 1994). For younger generations,
contingent work may represent their first job opportunity, while for older workers it may
represent a reentry into the labor market. Both developments –the growth in contingent
work and differently motivated workers across generations –affect how workers perceive
human resource practices (HRP) in their employment relationships.
The growth of temporary work and the emergence of TAWs, make it critical to assess
the extent to which existing theories, built upon the framework of standard employment, are
applicable to new work arrangements (Gallagher and Connelly, 2008). Research tradition in
management has emphasized the link between HRP and the business strategy (Ulrich et al.,
2008). New HRP, such as high-performance work systems, require a high degree of
employee identification and commitment for these practices to be effective (Boselie, 2010). In
this respect, the greatest disadvantage of temporary employment is a lack of worker loyalty
and commitment to the employer (e.g. Pfeffer, 1994). However, some researchers claim that
this disadvantage might be diminished through HR policies that integrate these workers,
and in the long run increase their efforts and dedication (Zimmerman et al., 2013). However,
the emergence of TAWs creates additional complexity to this work arrangement. The
engagement of an intermediary third-party (i.e. the temporary agency) establishes a
triangular employment relationship in which workers have to connect with whom they have
a formal contract (i.e. the temporary agency) and with whom they actually work for (i.e. the
client-company) (Kalleberg, 2009). Consequently, the challenge of making TAWs feel that
they belong is even greater since this involves more than one organization.
Secondarily, the presence of multiple generations of workers within the workplace entails
different and often conflicting demands for management (Lub et al., 2016; Costanza et al., 2012). In
this regard, research on generational differences can inform us on the relevant work values and
attitudes motivating different generations at work (e.g. Lub et al., 2016; Costanza et al., 2012; Lyons
et al., 2012). Employers recognize that generational differences influence motivations, needs,
learning styles, career expectations and work values (e.g. Cogin, 2012; Gursoy et al., 2008; Nget al.,
2012). As Ng and Parry (2016) note, the evidence on generational differences allows us to infer
variousattitudes and outcomes related with their career and workplace expectations. For example,
older generations have stronger work ethic and job involvement than younger generations (Egri
and Ralston, 2004), while the younger generations are less loyaland committed to their employers
than older generations (D’Amato and Herzfeldt, 2008; Twenge and Campbell, 2008).
If the workplace becomes more age diverse (Cogin, 2012), the generational differences are
amplified for TAWs, not only because different age groups might form different perceptions of
contingent work arrangements, but also because this arrangement fulfills different needs for
different workers (i.e. a first job opportunity for younger workers and an alternative to
unemployment for older workers). The present study seeks to examine how generational effects
(i.e. Baby Boomers, Generation X and Generation Y or “Millennials”) may influence the work
outcomes for TAWs who experience the same HRP. Figure 1 summarizes the research model.
Our study responds to calls by several authors (Ashford et al., 2007; Gallagher and
Connelly, 2008; Zimmerman et al., 2013) to deepen our understandingof temporary work
407
Dealing with
temporariness
To continue reading
Request your trial