Differential effects of employment status on work‐related outcomes. A pilot study of permanent and casual workers in Sri Lanka
| Date | 16 August 2011 |
| Published date | 16 August 2011 |
| Pages | 532-550 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/01425451111153899 |
| Author | Vathsala Wickramasinghe,Rasika Chandrasekara |
| Subject Matter | HR & organizational behaviour |
Differential effects
of employment status on
work-related outcomes
A pilot study of permanent and casual workers
in Sri Lanka
Vathsala Wickramasinghe and Rasika Chandrasekara
Department of Management of Technology, Faculty of Engineering,
University of Moratuwa, Moratuwa, Sri Lanka
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to investigate whether permanent workers with standard
employment that is protected, and casual workers with long-term employment that is not protected but
performing the same core jobs, along with permanent workers side-by-side in the same work setting,
exhibit different work-related outcomes.
Design/methodology/approach – Permanent workers and casual workers holding core jobs with
long-term employment responded to the survey questionnaire. Logistic regression was used for the
data analysis.
Findings – Job satisfaction, procedural justice and work performance were found to be important
work-related outcomes that discriminate between permanent and casual workers.
Originality/value – Although consequences of different employment arrangements would be of
interest to many organisations world wide, on the one hand, little empirical research has compared
work-related outcomes of permanent workers with casuals (holding the same core functions with
long-term employment) or permanent workers with workers in any form of nonstandard employment
arrangement. On the other hand, the literature on the use of labour flexibility strategies is mainly
concentrated on developed market economies. If organisations use casual workers alongside
permanent workers in core jobs, there is a need for examining implications of such practices.
The findings of this study establish baseline data that would be a source of general guidance in
stimulating future research in this area.
Keywords Casual employment,Nonstandard employment, Permanentemployment, Sri Lanka,
Employees
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
The changing pattern of work arrangement is a salient feature of the contemporary
employment environment and one that has received considerable attention in the
literature (Chattopadhyay and George, 2001; Connell and Burgess, 2002; Lansbury,
2009; Standing, 2008; Zeytinoglu et al., 2004). Organisations find themselves in the need
of increased flexibility within their workforce to promote efficiency and competitiveness
that deemed necessary in the global marketplace (Ilcan et al., 2003; Jung and Tak,2008).
One way to respond to the demand of flexibility is to rely on nonstandard employment
arrangements (Ilcan et al., 2003; Nollen and Axel, 1996). The term “nonstandard” is
used to distinguish a variety of employment arrangements, such as casual, from the
“standard” model of full-time, year-round, permanent employment with statutory
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0142-5455.htm
ER
33,5
532
Received 20 May 2010
Revised 30 March 2011
Accepted 26 April 2011
Employee Relations
Vol. 33 No. 5, 2011
pp. 532-550
qEmerald Group Publishing Limited
0142-5455
DOI 10.1108/01425451111153899
benefits and job security (Leighton and Painter, 2001; Louie et al., 2006). Evidence
suggests that there is a growing move towards a variety of nonstandard employment
arrangements (Burgess et al., 2008; Standing, 2008).
The use of nonstandard employment arrangements cannot be seen as a strategy on
its own, but must be considered as a part of the total approach of an organisation
towards its people management (Burgess et al., 2008; Standing, 2008). The use of
nonstandard employment arrangements reflects a desire on behalf of management to
increase the alignment of labour resources to the needs of the organization (Buultjens,
2001; Lowry et al., 2002) rather than commitments to meet equal or fair opportunity
motivations to assist employees (Twiname et al., 2006). The focus of this research,
however, is different from the flexible firm model (Atkinson, 1984; Hanratty, 2000)
because in the flexible firm model the core employees and the peripheral employees
undertake different job tasks. The focus of this study is on employees in the permanent
employment arrangement and nonstandard employment arrangement, casua l in
particular, who perform same core job tasks side-by-side in the same work setting.
Hence, for many people, standard full-time permanent employment along with its
associated benefits has been replaced with casual employment arrangement. Therefore,
some of the consequences of using nonstandard employment arrangements are changes
in the internal labour market structure (Saloniemi and Zeytinoglu, 2007) and
proliferation of inferior jobs in the labour market (Burgess and Campbell, 1998;
Campbell, 2001; Watson, 2005). Hence, such a use of casual employment arrangement
suggests declining stability and security in the employment and a growing irregular
labour force. Scholars, therefore, suggest this move as an indicative of a qualitative shift
in the regulation of employment relations (Ilcan et al., 2003).
Therefore, the literature identifies work status (i.e. whether permanentor casual)as a
major determinant of the exchange relationship betweenindividuals and the employing
organization (Ang and Slaughter, 2001; Storeyet al., 2002). The work status could have a
significant effect when both permanent and casual workers perform same job tasks
side-by-side in the same work setting. Specifically, work status influences employer
obligations such as pay, benefits, access to job-related training, opportunities for
advancement, and job security (Ang and Slaughter, 2001; Campbell, 1996; Lowry et al.,
2002). For instance, past studies identifiedcasual employment as an unprotected form of
employment with the absence of many standard benefits,rights and forms of protection
such as less income security, job security,and access to job-related training compared to
permanent employment (Campbell,1996; Campbell and Burgess, 2001; Layte et al., 2008;
Lowry et al., 2002; MacPhail and Bowles,2008; Standing, 2008). Hence, some researchers
argue that being employed as a casual worker would suggest being treated as a
second-class citizen by both employer and fellow permanent workers (Campbell and
Burgess, 2001). In this context, the literature provides rational for proposing that
permanent and casual workers holding core jobs with long-term employment working
side-by-side within the same organisation could have different work-related attitudes
based on the specifics of their exchange relationship because of their work status
(Ang and Slaughter, 2001; Buultjens, 2001; Watson, 2005). Attitudes and behaviours of
these two categoriesof workers are, therefore, important as those are related to important
work outcomes, such as performance (Ang and Slaughter, 2001; Buultjens, 2001).
Although links between labour flexibility strategies and employee attitudes
have been established in the Western research (Becker and Huselid, 1999;
Work-related
outcomes
533
To continue reading
Request your trial