de cuper i in. 2008-1

7/31/2019 De Cuper i in. 2008-1

1/22

APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL REVIEW, 2008, 57

(3), 488509

doi: 10.1111/j.1464-0597.2008.00332.x

2008 The Authors. Journal compilation 2008 International Association of AppliedPsychology. Published by Blackwell Publishing, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ,UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.

Blackwell Publishing LtdOxford, UKAPPSApplied Psychology0269-994X0269-994X International Association for Applied Psychology, 2008XXXOriginal ArticlesEMPLOYABILITY AND JOB INSECURITYDE CUYPER ET AL.

Employability and Employees Well-Being:

Mediation by Job Insecurity

1

Nele De Cuyper*

Research Group Work, Organisational and Personnel Psychology,

K.U. Leuven, Belgium

Claudia Bernhard-Oettel and Erik Berntson

Stockholm University, Sweden

Hans De Witte and Barbara Alarco

Research Group Work, Organisational and Personnel Psychology,

K.U. Leuven, Belgium

The current studys aims are twofold: first, we investigate the relationship

between employability and both work-related (engagement) and general (lifesatisfaction) well-being. Second, we study how employability may be relevant intimes of high job insecurity. Specifically, we hypothesise (1) a positive relationshipbetween employability and employees well-being, (2) a negative relationshipbetween employability and job insecurity, and (3) a negative relationship between

job insecurity and employees well-being, so that (4) job insecurity mediatesthe relationship between employability and employees well-being. Results basedon a sample of 559 respondents from divisions of seven Belgian organisationssupport our hypotheses. We conclude that employability may be a means tosecure ones labour market position, rather than a means to cope with jobinsecurity.

Les objectifs de cette tude sont doubles: nous tudions dabord la relationentre lemployabilit et la fois le bien-tre relatif au travail (implication) etle bien-tre global (la satisfaction provenant de lexistence). Ensuite, nousnous interrogeons sur la pertinence de lemployabilit en priode de grande

* Address for correspondence: Nele De Cuyper, Research Group Work, Organisational and

Personnel Psychology, K.U. Leuven, Tiensestraat 102, 3000 Leuven, Belgium. Email: nele.decuyper

@psy.kuleuven.be

1

This research is part of the Psycones-project (PSYchological CONtracts across

Employment Situations) supported by a grant from the EU, 5th framework programme

(HPSE-CT-2002-00121). Further information about the project is available on the web-page

www.uv.es/~psycon. The first authors contribution was supported by a grant from the FWO

(Fonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek Vlaanderen), G.039505.
http://www.uv.es/~psyconhttp://www.uv.es/~psycon

7/31/2019 De Cuper i in. 2008-1

2/22

EMPLOYABILITY AND JOB INSECURITY

489

2008 The Authors. Journal compilation 2008 International Association of AppliedPsychology.

inscurit professionnelle. Plus prcisment, nous posons les hypothses 1)dune relation positive entre lemployabilit et le bien-tre des employs, 2)dune relation ngative entre lemployabilit et linscurit professionnelle

et 3) dune relation ngative entre linscurit professionnelle et le bien-tre dessalaris, si bien que 4) linscurit professionnelle rgule la relation entrelemployabilit et le bien-tre des salaris. Les rsultats issus dun chantillonde 559 rpondants provenant de dpartements de sept organisations belgesconfortent nos hypothses. On conclut que lemployabilit peut tre une faonde scuriser sa situation sur le march du travail plutt quun moyen pouraffronter linscurit professionnelle.

INTRODUCTION

Policy interventions in the realm of employability have concerned various

ways to strengthen the employees labour market position. Specifically, the

interest in employability dates back to the 1950s, when employability

interventions aimed at realising full employment by stimulating entry into

the labour market. Much effort was directed towards vulnerable groups like

youngsters, the long-term unemployed, or the disabled who experienced

difficulties in finding employment (Forrier & Sels, 2003a; McQuaid & Lindsay,

2005). More recently, employability policies have targeted the total working

population rather than disadvantaged minorities or the unemployed,

and they have addressed the problem of securing rather than finding

employment (European Commission, 1997; Kluytmans & Ott, 1999). This

was inspired by fundamental changes in the labour market, namely the rise in

feelings of job insecurity among the workers owing to mergers, downsizing,

and tight labour markets in general (Sparks, Faragher, & Cooper, 2001).

Two beliefs have inspired the revived interest in employability; namely (1)

that employability is beneficial for the workers (de Vries, Grndemann, &

Van Vuuren, 2001), and (2) that employability is relevant in the context of

the evolution towards more job insecurity (Brown, Hesketh, & Williams,

2003). However, to date, potential consequences of employability are mostly

evaluated in terms of labour market indicators, for example wages, employment

history, or voluntary turnover (De Grip, Van Loo, & Sanders, 2004). By

way of contrast, little research has concerned the association between

employability and employees well-being. Furthermore, no satisfactory

account has been provided for the potential importance of employability in

job insecurity research, except for speculation that employable workers are

less likely to perceive job insecurity.

In response to these shortcomings, it is the intent of this study to investigate

(1) the association between employability and employees well-being, and

(2) job insecurity as a potentially important mediator of this relationship.

As regards employees well-being, we select engagement (i.e. a positive,

work-related state of mind that is typically characterised by vigour, dedication,

7/31/2019 De Cuper i in. 2008-1

3/22

490

DE CUYPER ET AL.


and absorption; Schaufeli & Bakker, 2001, 2004) and life satisfaction to

reflect work-related and general well-being, respectively.

EMPLOYABILITY AND WELL-BEING

All employability definitions refer to the individuals ability to make labour

market transitions (Brown et al., 2003; Forrier & Sels, 2003a; Hillage &

Pollard, 1998; McQuaid & Lindsay, 2005). This ability results from the

individuals know-how, skills, knowledge of the labour market, and

adaptability (Defillipi & Arthur, 1994; De Grip et al., 2004; de Vries et al.,

2001; Van Dam, 2004). It has traditionally been assessed using objective

indicators of an individuals labour market position, such as education,

training, or occupational position (Elman & ORand, 2002; Forrier & Sels,

2003a, 2003b; Van Dam, 2004; Virtanen, Kivimki, Virtanen, Elovainio, &

Vahtera, 2003; Worth, 2002). Recently, however, authors have developed

subjective indicators of employability with roots in research on perceived

ease of movement, as originally proposed by March and Simon (1958);

namely the individuals perception of the available alternatives in the

internal and/or external labour market. Along these lines, Berntson and

colleagues (Berntson & Marklund, 2007; Berntson, Sverke, & Marklund,

2006) define employability as the individuals perception of his or her

possibilities to achieve a new job. For the present study, we adopt this

definition of employability based upon arguments that, particularly when

aiming at investigating employees well-being, subjective indicators may

more accurately capture the interplay between contextual and individual

factors, which are key components in all employability models (e.g. Forrier

& Sels, 2003a; Trevor, 2001).

Employability is likely to relate favourably to employees job-related and

general well-being. First, employability may promote feelings of being in

control of ones career, which, in turn, relate to well-being (Fugate, Kinicki,

& Ashforth, 2004; Marler, Barringer, & Milkovich, 2002). For example,

Berntson and colleagues (Berntson, Bernhard-Oettel, & De Cuyper, 2007;

Berntson & Marklund, 2007) speculate that employability may reduce the

fear of becoming unemployed with likely favourable results. In this interpre-

tation, employability provides workers with choices and alternatives that

may make them less vulnerable in times of economic recession.

Second, Trevor (2001) and Pfeffer (1998) theorise that employable

persons are likely to quit jobs that are not rewarding or not satisfying; rather

than feeling locked in jobs they do not like (Aronsson & Gransson, 1999),

employable workers may act upon their perception that there are other and

potentially better alternatives to engage in job search behaviour. This could

imply that they eventually end up in jobs of good quality, which are known

to promote well-being.

7/31/2019 De Cuper i in. 2008-1

4/22


491


Third, employability has been portrayed as a key indicator of the new

psychological contract that exists between employers and employees; in

particular, under the new psychological contract, employees commit to high

performance and flexibility in exchange for organisational support in

promoting employability and facilities to exploit employability (Atkinson,

2002; De Vries et al., 2001; Forrier & Sels, 2003b; Hiltrop, 1995; Kluytmans

& Ott, 1999; Sullivan, 1999; Van Buren, 2003). Leading scholars suggest

that this type of psychological contract will become increasingly important

(Anderson & Schalk, 1998; Coyle-Shapiro & Kessler, 2002; Kluytmans &

Ott, 1999; Koh & Yer, 2000; Millward & Brewerton, 2000; Rousseau, 1995),

and that it parallels the evolution from paternalistic employment relationships

to partnerships in which employability is a shared responsibility of employer

and employee, and in which both parties aim at a balanced exchange. This,

in turn, has been related to well-being (De Cuyper, Rigotti, De Witte, &

Mohr, 2008; Koh & Yer, 2000; Shore & Barksdale, 1998; Tsui, Pearce,

Porter, & Tripoli, 1997).

A related issue concerns the importance of employability in the post-

industrial knowledge society (Szab & Ngyesi, 2005), where the continuous

updating of knowledge is a critical asset to remain competitive in the

globalised market. Plausibly, employees just as employers may be aware

of this development (Griffeth, Steel, Allen, & Bryan, 2005). Employees who

are familiar with the newest technology, the so-called intellectual

capital (Butler & Waldroop, 1999, p. 152), may evaluate themselves as

being highly employable, and they may feel capable of dealing with

contemporary and future developments, including the shift towards the

new psychological contract, which is likely to promote well-being. By way

of contrast, individuals who do not have a unique mix of relevant experiences,

updated skills and knowledge, and large social networks may feel low

employability (Griffeth et al., 2005), and they may depend heavily on their

present employer while at the same time realising that the era of lifelong

employment in one company has come to an end. This, in turn, may stimulate

feelings of job insecurity, and thus, poor well-being (De Witte, 1999, 2005,

2006).

However, to date, there has been little analysis of the relationship

between employability and well-being, with the exception of the longitudinal

study by Berntson and Marklund (2007) among a representative sample of

Swedish employees. The authors establish that employability is associated with

general health and mental well-being when controlled for health status or

mental well-being at time 1. In keeping with this evidence, our first hypo-

thesis reads as follows:

Hypothesis 1

: Employability relates positively to engagement (H1a) and life

satisfaction (H1b).

7/31/2019 De Cuper i in. 2008-1

5/22

492

DE CUYPER ET AL.



Employability is often mentioned in association with job insecurity (Gallie,

White, Cheng, & Tomlinson, 1998; Sverke & Hellgren, 2002). Like employability,

job insecurity has been measured with objective and subjective indicators

(Bssing, 1999). However, unlike in employability research, the subjective

job insecurity interpretation has clearly dominated many of the earlier and

recent writings. In line with this literature, we define job insecurity as the

employees perceptions about potential involuntary job loss (see e.g. De

Witte, 1999, 2005, 2006; Greenhalgh & Rosenblatt, 1984; Heany, Israel, &

House, 1994; Sverke, Hellgren, & Nswall, 2002; Van Vuuren, 1990).

Employability has been portrayed as a potential antecedent of job

insecurity (Berntson et al., 2007; Forrier & Sels, 2003b; Sverke et al., 2002):

high-employable compared with low-employable workers may be less likely

to perceive job insecurity. This can be understood alongside assumptions

formulated in theories on labour market use, such as the Flexible Firm

Model (Atkinson, 1984) or Dual Labour Market Theory (Doeringer &

Piore, 1971): employers may offer the most secure jobs to attract and retain

highly valuable workers, who would easily find alternative employment in

the case of undesirable working conditions. For example, Schaufeli (1992)

establishes that less educated workers are more likely to be employed in

insecure jobs than highly educated workers, and thus, they may be more

likely to perceive job insecurity. In this case, educational level might be a

proxy of employability (Elman & ORand, 2002; Forrier & Sels, 2003a; Van

Dam, 2004; Virtanen et al., 2003; Worth, 2002). Arguments expressed in

Human Capital Theory (Becker, 1993) may lead to similar predictions:

those with a strong labour market position, such as high-employable workers,

expect a return on their earlier investments. These revenues are mostly

described in terms of wage increases. However, employees decisions may be

monitored by non-financial motives as well (Brown et al., 2003; Marler

et al., 2002), for example by motives related to reduced job insecurity. This

aligns with the study by Worth (2002), who concludes that employees are

committed to the ideal of long-term secure employment as a return for

human capital investments. In sum, these theories suggest that perceptions of

reduced job insecurity in high-employable workers result from employment

in objectively secure jobs.

Another potentially useful theoretical framework to explain the relationship

between employability and reduced job insecurity is the Appraisal Theory

as advanced by Lazarus and Folkman (1984; Berntson & Marklund,

2007). Employable workers may interpret the contemporary labour market

and turbulent economic times favourably as a challenge rather than as a

threat, which, in turn, could imply that they are less likely to perceive job

insecurity. By way of contrast, low-employable workers cannot rely upon

7/31/2019 De Cuper i in. 2008-1

6/22


493


such coping mechanisms: for them, labour market changes or organisational

turbulence present a threat with likely higher job insecurity as a conse-

quence. This aligns with the study by Berntson et al. (2007), who show that

organisational changes predict job insecurity, particularly in workers who

do not feel employable. Thus, we hypothesise the following:

Hypothesis 2

: Employability relates negatively to job insecurity.

As regards potential consequences, job insecurity has been highlighted as

perhaps one of the most important stressors in contemporary working life: job

insecurity may cause stress reactions owing to feelings of uncontrollability

and unpredictability (Dekker & Schaufeli, 1995; Greenhalgh & Rosenblatt,

1984; Van Vuuren, 1990), potential frustration of needs related to socialparticipation and recognition, and the potential loss of financial resources

(Jahoda, 1982). More recently, job insecurity has been described as a severe

breach of the old psychological contract that still dominates an important

contingent of workers, and that fosters employees loyalty through the

employers provision of job security (De Cuyper & De Witte, 2006, 2007;

De Witte & Nswall, 2003). Such breaches predict poor well-being

(Lambert, Edwards, & Cable, 2003; Rousseau, 1995).

A wealth of literature has provided support for the relationship between

job insecurity and poor well-being (for review studies, see e.g. De Witte,1999, 2005, 2006; Sverke et al., 2002). For example, job insecurity predicts

job dissatisfaction (Ashford, Lee, & Bobko, 1989; Heany et al., 1994; Lim,

1997). Likewise, job insecurity has been related to poor psychological

well-being (Burchell, 1992; Van Vuuren, Klandermans, Jacobson, & Hartley,

1991). Furthermore, longitudinal studies suggest that job insecurity is more

likely to cause poor well-being than vice versa (Ferrie, Shipley, Marmot,

Stansfeld, & Smith, 1998; Hellgren & Sverke, 2003; Nelson, Cooper, &

Jackson, 1995). In keeping with this evidence, we hypothesise the following:

Hypothesis 3

: Job insecurity relates negatively to engagement (H3a) and life

satisfaction (H3b).

Hypotheses 1 to 3 are summarised in Figure 1. Obviously, this pattern of

assumptions encourages thinking within a mediation framework.

Specifically, the relationship between employability and well-being (H1)

might be mediated by job insecurity. Other conditions for mediation are

that employability relates to job insecurity (H2), and that job insecurity

relates to well-being (H3).This assumption of mediation will be investigatedin Hypothesis 4, as follows:

Hypothesis 4

: The relationship between employability and engagement (H4a)

and life satisfaction (H4b) is mediated by job insecurity.

7/31/2019 De Cuper i in. 2008-1

7/22

494

DE CUYPER ET AL.


A potential criticism may concern the possibility of reversed causation.

In this respect, Berntson and Marklund (2007) have established that

employability is related to subsequent health (Hypothesis 1). Also, firm

causal evidence has been reported for the relationship between job insecurity

and well-being (Ferrie et al., 1998; Hellgren & Sverke, 2003; Nelson et al.,

1995, hypothesis 3), thus making reversed causation unlikely. However, causality

still needs to be demonstrated for the relationship between employability

and job insecurity: instead of our assumption that employability is an

antecedent of job insecurity, it could be argued that job insecurity predicts low

employability, which, in turn, associates with unfavourable outcomes. For

example, employers may be inclined to offer training opportunities only to

workers in the most secure jobs, which may increase these workers employ-

ability (Virtanen et al., 2003; Wiens-Tuers & Hill, 2002). The employers motives

in this case may concern guarantees that training costs are recovered in

terms of future and long-term productivity. However, research shows that

employers tend to finance company-specific rather than general training

(Forrier & Sels, 2003b), which may relate to the employers wish to reduce

turnover among trained workers (Groot & Maassen-Van der Brink, 2000).

Accordingly, while employers training investments may increase mobility

and promotion chances within the company, it may in fact limit external

mobility for those in secure jobs. This suggests that job security may not

lead to employability, at least not when employability is defined as in the

context of this study, namely as the perceived chance of achieving a new job.

METHOD

Data Collection and Respondents

In the spring of 2004, divisions from seven Belgian companies agreed to

participate in a survey on the quality of working life, yielding a total sample

FIGURE 1. Summary of hypotheses: Mediation of the relationship between

employability and well-being by job insecurity.

7/31/2019 De Cuper i in. 2008-1

8/22


495


size of 559: one industrial setting (

N

=

257; 46.0%) with a response rate of

87.6 per cent, and six smaller retail organisations (

N

=

302; 54.0%) with

response rates varying between 33 per cent and 58 per cent in five out of six

organisations. The response rate was somewhat lower in one retail organisation

(20.8%), probably because this organisation did not have a Human Resources

department to actively support the research goals. Organisations as well as

sectors were recruited based on possibilities for generalising findings, and

on expected variation in levels of employability and job insecurity. The

participants completed confidential questionnaires during working time,

either during group sessions facilitated by the researchers or individually,

or, if preferred, at home. The questionnaire was accompanied by a letter

from the Human Resources manager or the general manager, stressing

confidentiality, voluntary participation, as well as the importance of the study

for all parties involved. Feedback on the research results was provided to all

companies, mostly in group sessions in which respondents could participate.

A total of 27.5 per cent (N= 154) of the respondents were employed on

a fixed-term employment contract, while 72.5 per cent (N = 405) were

permanently employed. About one respondent in three (34.4%; N = 185)

reported being employed as a white-collar worker. The remaining of 353

respondents (65.6%) were blue-collar workers. On average, respondents had

been employed for 10 years (SD= 9.42) in their current company, and they

worked 31 hours per week (SD= 9.7). Mean age was 34 years (SD= 10.22).

More women (64.7%; N= 355) than men (35.3%; N= 194) participated. A

minority reported being single (32.7%; N= 178). The others were married

or cohabiting (67.3%; N= 367), and 22.3 per cent (N= 119) of the sample

continued education beyond high school level.

Measures

All scales reported in this section were used and validated in earlier research

in many employment settings and with various types of workers (for

more information, see Clinton, Guest, Budjanovcanin, Stainvarts, Krausz,

Bernhard, Bellaagh, Isaksson, Rigotti, Mohr, De Cuyper, De Witte, Claes,

De Jong, Schalk, Silla, Cabbaler, Gracia, Ramos, & Peir, 2005; Isaksson,

Bernhard, Claes, De Witte, Guest, Krausz, Peir, Mohr, & Schalk, 2003;

Rigotti, Mohr, De Cuyper, De Witte, Bernhard, Isaksson, de Jong, Schalk,

Caballer, Gracia, Peir, Ramos, Clinton, Guest, Krausz, & Staynvarts,

2003). Confirmatory Factor Analysis supported single-factor structures with

good fit for all scales. Information about means, standard deviations, and

correlations between scales is reported in Table 1.

Employability was measured with four items which were developed by De

Witte (2000). Respondents had to indicate their agreement with items such

as I am confident that I could quickly get a similar job or I am optimistic

7/31/2019 De Cuper i in. 2008-1

9/22

2008The

Authors.Journalcompilation

2008InternationalAssociation

ofApplied

Psychology.

TABLE 1

Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations between Scales (listwise

M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Employability 2.81 .97 1

2. Job insecurity 2.44 .88 .14** 1

3. Engagement 3.79 1.11 .08 .18** 1

4. Life satisfaction 5.48 1.04 .13** .20** .30** 1

5. Industry .44 .50 .05 .33** .13** .04 16. Tenure 10.43 9.46 .31** .25** .04 .08 .10* 1

7. Working hours 31.19 9.84 .02 .15** .02 .01 .52** .11* 1

8. Training 13.94 33.64 .09 .03 .03 .01 .07 .04

9. Permanent .72 .45 .09 .42** .14** .06 .04 .56**

10. Male .35 .48 .17** .05 .03 .06 .15** .07

11. Academic .22 .42 .05 .11* .01 .06 .33** .14**

12. Married .67 .47 .13** .27** .03 .09* .03 .37**

* p< .05; **p< .01.

7/31/2019 De Cuper i in. 2008-1

10/22

EMPLOYABILITY AND JOB INSECURITY 497


that I would find another job if I looked for one (1 = strongly disagree;

5 = strongly agree). Reliability equalled .90 (N= 532, 2= 7.17, df= 2,

p< .05; GFI = .99; AGFI = .97; RMSEA = .09).

Perceived job insecurity was measured using four items (De Witte, 2000).

Sample items were I feel insecure about the future of my job and I think

I might lose my job in the near future. Respondents had to indicate their

agreement on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Reliability

equalled .86 (N= 531, 2= 9.30, df= 2, p< .01; GFI = .99; AGFI = .95;

RMSEA = .07). As job insecurity and employability were potentially

overlapping, we calculated their discriminant validity. The CFA showed a

better fit for the two-factor model as compared with the single-factor model

(N= 523, 2= 60.74, df= 19,p< .001; GFI = .97; AGFI = .95; RMSEA = .07).

Well-Being. Engagement was measured using the dimensions vigour

and dedication of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (Schaufeli & Bakker,

2003). These dimensions have been found to represent the core aspects of

engagement (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2001, 2004; Storm & Rothman, 2003).

The scale included 10 items (e.g. I am enthusiastic about my job) with

responses varying from 1 (never) to 6 (always). Reliability was high (= .95;

N= 542, 2= 155.72, df= 30,p< .001; GFI = .95; AGFI = .90; RMSEA =

.092). Life satisfaction was measured with six items (Isaksson et al., 2003).

A sample item was How satisfied do you currently feel about your leisure

time? Responses varied from 1 (very dissatisfied) to 7 (very satisfied).

Reliability equalled .87 (N= 542, 2= 47.20, df= 9, p< .001; GFI = .97;

AGFI = .93; RMSEA = .09).

Control Variables. In order to rule out alternative explanations,

important work-related variables as well as demographics were controlled

for. These variables were identified in earlier research as potentially impor-

tant confounders when employability and/or job insecurity are concerned

(for employability, see e.g. Berntson et al., 2006; Forrier & Sels, 2003a; for

job insecurity, see e.g. Kinnunen & Ntti, 1994; Mauno & Kinnunen, 2002;

Nswall & De Witte, 2003). As respects work-related variables, we controlled

for sector (0 = retail; 1 = industry), tenure (years), weekly working hours

(average hours per week), training (hours per year), and contract type

(temporary, fixed term contract = 0; permanent, open-ended contract = 1).

As respects demographics, the following controls were included: gender (0

2 Unlike with the other scales, this model included five error variance between items for

which the wording was similar.

7/31/2019 De Cuper i in. 2008-1

11/22

498 DE CUYPER ET AL.


= female; 1 = male), education (0 = no academic degree; 1 = academic degree),

and family status (0 = single; 1 = married or cohabiting). We did not control

for occupational position (blue-collar versus white-collar) because of its

high association with sector (r=.65, p< .001). Similarly, we did not con-

trol for age, because of its high correlation with tenure (r = .74, p< .001).

However, we ran analyses using age and occupational position instead of

tenure and sector. As the results did not change significantly, we decided to

use one variable from each pair.

Analyses

The hypotheses were tested using hierarchical regression analyses, following

recommendations by Baron and Kenny (1986) for testing mediation. List-

wise deletion was applied in all analyses, which resulted in slightly smaller

samples. Conditional for mediation was (1) that employability was related

to engagement and life satisfaction (Hypothesis 1); (2) that employability

was related to job insecurity (Hypothesis 2), and (3) that job insecurity was

related to engagement and life satisfaction (Hypothesis 3). To investigate

conditions 1 and 3, the control variables were entered in the first step,

employability in the second step, and job insecurity in the third step. To

investigate condition 2 on the relationship between employability and job

insecurity, we regressed the control variables (step 1) and employability

(step 2) on job insecurity. Evidence for mediation was found when employ-

ability had a smaller or non-significant relationship with the outcomes when

introducing job insecurity (regression equation described in condition 3)

as compared to the regression equation in which job insecurity was not

introduced (regression equation described in condition 1). When the regression

was indicative for a mediator effect, the Sobel test (Sobel, 1982) was used

to assess the extent to which job insecurity carried the effect of employability

on the outcome variables.

RESULTS

To test Hypothesis 1 on the association between employability and well-

being, we inspected the second step of the regression analyses shown in

Table 2. Employability added in explaining variance in both engagement

(H1a) and life satisfaction (H1b): specifically, employability was positively

related to engagement and life satisfaction, in keeping with Hypothesis 1.

However, the variance that could be explained by employability was rather

small, namely .01 for engagement and .04 for life satisfaction.

Hypothesis 2 concerned the relationship between employability and job

insecurity. Table 3 summarises the corresponding regression analyses.

Employability was negatively associated with job insecurity, meaning that

7/31/2019 De Cuper i in. 2008-1

12/22



high-employable compared with low-employable workers were less likely to

feel insecure. This supported Hypothesis 2.

In Hypothesis 3, we predicted that job insecurity would relate to poor

well-being. This was supported for engagement (H3a) and life satisfaction

TABLE 2

Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analyses: Predicting Engagement and Life

Satisfaction

Engagement (N= 484) Life satisfaction (N= 484)

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 1 Step 2 Step 3

Industry .23*** .23*** .15** .09 .10 .18**

Tenure .08 .12* .09 .10 .05 .08

Working hours .16** .17** .20*** .03 .02 .02

Training .02 .01 .00 .01 .02 .03

Permanent .26*** .27*** .37*** .05 .06 .17**

Male .01 .03 .04 .05 .08 .09

Academic .05 .05 .07 .08 .09 .06Married .10 .10 .06 .16** .16** .12*

Employability .10* .05 .14** .08

Job insecurity .28*** .31***

R2 .07 .08 .13 .04 .05 .11

R2 .07*** .01* .05*** .04* .02** .06***

* p< .05; ** p< .01; *** p< .001.

TABLE 3Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analyses: Predicting Job Insecurity

Job insecurity (N= 484)

Step 1 Step 2

Industry .28*** .28***

Tenure .03 .10

Working hours .12* .11

Training .05 .04Permanent .39*** .36***

Male .07 .04

Academic .06 .07

Married .14* .14**

Employability .19***

R2 .33 .36

R2 .33*** .03***

7/31/2019 De Cuper i in. 2008-1

13/22



(H3b), as shown in the third step of the regression analyses shown in Table 2;

specifically, job insecurity was related to reduced engagement and life

dissatisfaction.

Finally, we investigated possible mediation of the relationship between

employability and well-being by job insecurity (H4). Support for Hypotheses 1

to 3 was conditional for mediation. In addition, we established that the

relationship between employability and engagement was no longer significant

when introducing job insecurity in the regression analyses. Similarly,

employability did not contribute to explaining life satisfaction when adding

job insecurity. Moreover, the Sobel test suggested that the drop in regression

weights was substantial for both engagement (z= 3.31, p< .001) and life

satisfaction (z= 3.44,p< .001). This suggested that the relationship between

employability and well-being is mediated by job insecurity, as predicted

in Hypothesis 4.

The control variables added significantly in predicting engagement, life

satisfaction, and job insecurity. In particular, employment in the industrial

compared with in the retail sector, and permanent compared with temporary

employment, were negatively related to engagement. Weekly working hours

were positively related to engagement. Being married or cohabiting was

positively related to life satisfaction. Job insecurity was associated with

working in the industrial versus in the retail sector, weekly working hours,

temporary compared with permanent employment, and being married or

cohabiting versus being single.

DISCUSSION

The present study aimed to advance understanding about the psychological

correlates of employability. Recent literature has focused upon potential

consequences of employability in terms of labour market positioning and

organisational productivity. In contrast, this study examined the relationship

between employability and employees work-related (engagement) and

general (life satisfaction) well-being under control of a range of work-related

variables (e.g. sector, training) and demographics (e.g. education) that have

been assigned a critical role in studies in the realm of employability

research. In keeping with results reported by Berntson and Marklund

(2007), we established that employability was associated with well-being:

employability was positively related to engagement (H1a) and life satisfaction

(H1b). The latter may represent an ultimate outcome (Sverke et al., 2002),

that is, an outcome outside the workplace, which suggests that employability

may be a powerful predictor. Still, not much variance could be attributed

to employability, possibly because well-being is a fairly broad concept that

is predicted by many other variables, or because employability prevents the

development of negative experiences, such as unemployment or feelings of

7/31/2019 De Cuper i in. 2008-1

14/22



being locked-in. This idea of employability as a prevention tool does not

imply strong favourable correlates; employability may have the potential to

reduce negative feelings rather than to induce positive feelings.

Another aim of this study was to situate employability within the context

of increased levels of job insecurity. We argued that employability may

relate negatively to job insecurity (H2): high-employable workers may feel

more secure, possibly because they choose the most secure jobs out of many

alternatives (Human Capital Theory), because they are offered such jobs

(Dual Labour Market Theory; Flexible Firm Model), or because they interpret

turbulent times as challenging rather than as threatening (Appraisal

Theory). Evidence for this assumption was provided in our data. This

observation underlined our earlier speculation that employability may

prevent the development of undesirable experiences: general favourable

beliefs about future employment prospects may positively affect employees

perception about the future of their current job.

Taking this one step further, we draw upon job insecurity literature to

predict an association between job insecurity and poor well-being (H3; see e.g.

De Witte, 1999, 2005, 2006; Sverke et al., 2002). As expected, job insecurity

was negatively related to engagement (H3a) and life satisfaction (H3b), even

to the extent that employability was no longer a significant predictor. This

implied that the relationship between employability and well-being was

mediated by job insecurity (H4), so that highly employable workers feel less

job insecure, which, in turn, associates with well-being. Conversely, low-

employable workers are likely to feel insecure about the future of their jobs,

which, in turn, relates to poor well-being. Altogether, this suggests that

employability relates to well-being because it is a means to secure jobs, in

line with earlier speculations by Worth (2002).

Support for this mediation framework is most innovative in the realm of

employability research: it provides an alternative to earlier studies that have

considered employability as a potential moderator of the relationship

between job insecurity and the outcomes. The idea of employability as a

moderator was originally proposed by Greenhalgh and Rosenblatt (1984),

and it was further developed by scholars such as Fugate et al. (2004),

Nswall (2004, 2005), and Sverke and Hellgren (2002). These authors think

of employability as an appropriate coping resource when confronted with

job insecurity, or otherwise, employability may buffer likely unfavourable

outcomes of job insecurity. This has been demonstrated in some studies,

where the interaction term between employability and job insecurity adds in

explaining variance in psychosomatic complaints (Bssing, 1999; Mohr,

2000), distress (Bssing, 1999), and depression (Kuhnert & Vance, 1992).

However, other studies did not establish the hypothesised interaction effects

on well-being indicators such as anxiety (Kuhnert & Vance, 1992; Mohr,

2000) and job satisfaction (Bssing, 1999). This study provides a potential

7/31/2019 De Cuper i in. 2008-1

15/22



explanation for the absence of interaction effects between employability and

job insecurity: specifically, employability and job insecurity may relate

differently to well-being; namely through mediation rather than moderation

mechanisms. An important question to be addressed in future research then

is how and under which conditions mediation or moderation mechanisms

operate. In either case, however, employability is important for the workers

well-being, either because it represents a means to secure jobs in the case of

mediation, or because it buffers potential negative consequences of job

insecurity in the case of moderation.

Finally, our results could be important for practitioners, and they may

have implications beyond employees well-being. The observation that

employable workers are less likely to perceive job insecurity may provide

employers with ample opportunities to create a loyal workforce, given the

firm association between job security and organisational commitment and

reduced turnover intention (De Witte, 1999, 2005, 2006; Sverke et al., 2002).

Specifically, employers may engage in promoting employability through

company-provided training as a strategy to reduce concerns about potential

job loss, and as a signal of excellent entrepreneurship (Kluytmans & Ott,

1999; de Vries et al., 2001). This may associate with favourable attitudes

towards the organisation; unlike earlier speculations that turnover among

valued employees is perhaps the most important drawback of employability

(De Grip et al., 2004; Elman & ORand, 2002). Accordingly, the association

between employability and organisational outcomes could be a potentially

fruitful avenue for future research.

Limitations

There were some limitations inherent to this study. First, the cross-sectional

design did not allow for causal interpretations. In particular, feeling

employable may be conditional upon employees health and well-being.

However, the longitudinal study by Berntson and Marklund (2007) dem-

onstrates that employability relates to subsequent health. Similarly, research

in the realm of job insecurity has convincingly shown that job insecurity is

more likely to cause poor well-being than vice versa. Also, based on theoretical

arguments, we are inclined to hypothesise that employability reduces job

insecurity. Still, a longitudinal design could further strengthen our conclusions

(see e.g. Chen, Matthews, Spector, & Barnes-Farrell, 2006).

A second limitation concerned sample restrictions: for example, our sample

included a fairly large share of blue-collar workers and temporary workers,

and only a minority of respondents followed academic education. This may

suggest that our sample was not highly employable, given earlier studies on

potential antecedents of employability. Still, we sampled organisations in

different sectors, namely industry and retail, which are known to differ in

7/31/2019 De Cuper i in. 2008-1

16/22



job insecurity and employability. They may imply good possibilities for

generalising findings. However, future research may want to replicate our

results using other samples.

Third, we relied on employees perceptions to assess employability, job

insecurity, as well as well-being. Hence, common method variance may have

influenced the correlations. A related issue may concern the idea that

relationships between variables such as employability, job insecurity, and

well-being are influenced by personality factors, most notably positive or

negative affectivity or self-efficacy. To date, there is considerable debate on

the magnitude of possible inflation of relationships owing to common method

variance (Crampton & Wagner, 1994; Spector, 1987) or personality (for a

review of studies on this issue, see Podsakoff, Mackenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff,

2003). With respect to self-efficacy, recent evidence suggests that employability

and self-efficacy are clearly distinct constructs (Berntson, Sverke, Nswall,

& Hellgren, 2006). However, to reduce potential risks on common method

variance, we followed many of the suggestions on questionnaire design

formulated by Podsakoff et al. (2003; e.g. changes in the response format,

anonymity, instructing the participants that there are no right or wrong

answers). Furthermore, with respect to statistical techniques to inspect the

possibility of common method variance, we performed the so-called

Harmans single-factor test (in Podsakoff et al., 2003): we loaded all

variables into an exploratory factor analyses. The factor solution suggested

four factors, which reflected the key constructs in this paper, namely,

employability, job insecurity, engagement, and life satisfaction. The fact that

there was no single factor or a general factor accounting for the majority of

the variance may indicate that common method variance may not explain

the pattern of results in this study.3

Concluding Remarks

The current study addressed two topical themes of the contemporary labour

market, namely employability and job insecurity. Furthermore, it added to

earlier research in at least two ways. First, we investigated the relationship

between employability and employees well-being, where earlier studies are

concerned with the association between employability and labour market

outcomes. In this respect, we demonstrated that employability relates to

employees well-being. This implies that employability may not only be a

labour market instrument to increase wages or to promote organisational

3 We were unable to perform more advanced techniques to control for common method

variance such as partial correlation procedures (Podsakoff et al., 2003) owing to the limited

sample size.

7/31/2019 De Cuper i in. 2008-1

17/22



functioning, but that it can also be used as a human resource instrument to

advance well-being at work as well as outside work.

Second, we advanced a framework in which job insecurity mediates the

relationship between employability and employees well-being, where other

authors interpreted employability as a moderator of the relationship

between job insecurity and employees well-being. In this respect, our results

suggested that highly employable workers are more likely to perceive their

jobs as secure, which, in turn, relates positively to well-being. We would like

to invite researchers to further explore possible consequences of employability

for employees as well as their organisations, and to investigate the conditions

under which mediation or moderation mechanisms occur.

REFERENCES

Anderson, N., & Schalk, R. (1998). The psychological contract in retrospect and

prospect. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 637647.

Aronsson, G., & Gransson, S. (1999). Permanent employment but not in a preferred

occupation: Psychological and medical aspects, research implications. Journal of

Occupational Health Psychology, 4(2), 152163.

Ashford, S.J., Lee, C., & Bobko, P. (1989). Content, causes and consequences of job

insecurity: A theory-based measure and substantive test. Academy of Manage-

ment Journal, 32, 803829.

Atkinson, C. (2002). Career management and the changing psychological contract.

Career Development International, 7(1), 1423.

Atkinson, J. (1984). Manpower strategies for flexible organizations. Personnel

Management, August, 2831.

Baron, R.M., & Kenny, D.A. (1986). The moderatormediator variable distinction

in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 11731182.

Becker, G.S. (1993). Human capital: A theoretical and empirical analysis with special

reference to education. Chicago, IL: National Bureau of Economic Research, TheUniversity of Chicago Press.

Berntson, E., Bernhard-Oettel, C., & De Cuyper, N. (2007). The moderating role of

employability in the relationship between organizational changes and job insecurity.

Paper presented at the 13th European Congress of Work and Organizational

Psychology, 912 May, Stockholm.

Berntson, E., & Marklund, S. (2007). The relationship between employability and

subsequent health. Work & Stress,21(3), 279292.

Berntson, E., Sverke, M., & Marklund, S. (2006). Predicting perceived employability:

Human capital or labour market opportunities? Economic and Industrial

Democracy,27, 223244.Berntson, E., Sverke, M., Nswall, K., & Hellgren, J. (2006). The relationship

between self-efficacy and employability. Poster presented at the 7th Conference

of the European Academy of Occupational Health Psychology, 810 November,

Dublin, Ireland.

7/31/2019 De Cuper i in. 2008-1

18/22



Brown, P., Hesketh, A., & Williams, S. (2003). Employability in a knowledge-driven

society. Journal of Education and Work, 16(2), 107126.

Burchell, B. (1992). Towards a social psychology of the labour market: Or why we

need to understand the labour market before we can understand unemployment.Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 65(4), 345354.

Bssing, A. (1999). Can control at work and social support moderate psychological

consequences of job insecurity? Results from a quasi-experimental study in the

steel industry. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8, 219

242.

Butler, T., & Waldroop, J. (1999). Job sculpting: The art of retaining your best

people. Harvard Business Review, SeptemberOctober.

Chen, P., Matthews, R.A., Spector, P.E., & Barnes-Farrell, J.L. (2006). Statistical

control: Challenges and suggestions for future research in occupational health

psychology. Paper presented at the 7th Conference of the European Academy of

Occupational Health Psychology.

Clinton, M., Guest, D., Budjanovcanin, A., Stainvarts, N., Krausz, M., Bernhard, C.,

Bellaagh, K., Isaksson, K., Rigotti, T., Mohr, G., De Cuyper, N., De Witte, H.,

Claes, R., De Jong, J., Schalk, R., Silla, I., Cabbaler, A., Gracia, F., Ramos, J., &

Peir, J.M. (2005). Investigating individual and organizational determinants of

the psychological contract: Data collection and analysis. Unpublished working

document, Kings College, London.

Coyle-Shapiro, J.A.M., & Kessler, I. (2002). Contingent and non-contingent working

in local government: Contrasting psychological contracts. Public Administration,

80(1), 77101.

Crampton, S.M., & Wagner, J.A. (1994). Percept-percept inflation in micro-

organizational research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 6776.

De Cuyper, N., & De Witte, H. (2006). The impact of job insecurity and contract

type on attitudes, well-being and behavioural reports: A psychological contract

perspective. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 79, 395

409.

De Cuyper, N., & De Witte, H. (2007). Job insecurity among temporary versus

permanent workers: Effects on job satisfaction, organizational commitment, life

satisfaction and self-rated performance. Work & Stress,21(1), 120.De Cuyper, N., Rigotti, T., De Witte, H., & Mohr, G. (2008). Balancing psycholog-

ical contracts: Validation of a typology. International Journal of Human Resource

Management, 19(4), 543561.

Defillipi, R.J., & Arthur, M.B. (1994). The boundaryless career: A competency

based perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 307324.

De Grip, A., Van Loo, J., & Sanders, J. (2004). The industry employability index:

Taking account of supply and demand characteristics. International Labour

Review, 14(3), 211233.

Dekker, S., & Schaufeli, W. (1995). The effects of job insecurity on psychological

health and withdrawal: A longitudinal study. Australian Psychologist, 30(1), 5763.

de Vries, S., Grndemann, R., & Van Vuuren, T. (2001). Employability policy in

Dutch organizations. The International Journal of Human Resource Management,

12(7), 11931202.

7/31/2019 De Cuper i in. 2008-1

19/22



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(2), 155177.

De Witte, H. (2000). Arbeidsethos en jobonzekerheid: Meting en gevolgen voorwelzijn, tevredenheid en inzet op het werk [Work ethic and job insecurity:

Measurement and consequences for well-being, satisfaction and productivity]. In

R. Bouwen, K. De Witte, H. De Witte, & T. Taillieu (Eds.), Van groep naar

gemeenschap. Liber amicorum Prof. Dr Leo Lagrou (pp. 325350). Leuven:

Garant.

De Witte, H. (2005). Job insecurity: Review of the international literature on

definitions, prevalence, antecedents and consequences. South African Journal of

Industrial Psychology, 31(4), 16.

De Witte, H. (2006). Onzeker over de toekomst van je baan: Een groeiend

maatschappelijk fenomeen. Peilen naar oorzaken, gevolgen en oplossingen

[Job insecurity: A growing phenomenon. Causes, consequences and solutions]. In

B. Raymaekers & G. Van Riel (Eds.), Weten in woorden en daden. Lessen voor de

eenentwintigste eeuw (pp. 251277). Leuven: Universitaire Pers Leuven.

De Witte, H., & Nswall, K. (2003). Objective versus subjective job insecurity: Con-

sequences of temporary work for job satisfaction and organizational commitment

in four European countries. Economic and Industrial Democracy,24(2), 149188.

Doeringer, P.B., & Piore, M.J. (1971). Internal labour market and manpower analysis.

Lexington, MA: Heath Lexington Books.

Elman, C., & ORand, A.M. (2002). Perceived job insecurity and entry into

work-related education and training among adult workers. Social Science

Research, 31, 4976.

European Commission (1997). Proposal for guidelines for member states employment

policies in 1998. Brussels: European Commission.

Ferrie, J., Shipley, M., Marmot, M., Stansfeld, S., & Smith, D. (1998). The health

effects of major organisational change and job insecurity. Social Science and

Medicine, 46(2), 243254.

Forrier, A., & Sels, L. (2003a). The concept employability: A complex mosaic. Inter-

national Journal of Human Resource Development and Management, 3(2), 103124.

Forrier, A., & Sels, L. (2003b). Temporary employment and employability: Trainingopportunities and efforts of temporary and permanent employees in Belgium.

Work, Employment and Society, 17(4), 641666.

Fugate, M., Kinicki, A.J., & Ashforth, B.E. (2004). Employability: A psycho-social

construct, its dimensions and applications. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65,

1438.

Gallie, D., White, M., Cheng, Y., & Tomlinson, M. (1998). Restructuring the

employment relationship. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Greenhalgh, L., & Rosenblatt, Z. (1984). Job insecurity: Towards conceptual clarity.

Academy of Management Review, 9(3), 438448.

Griffeth, R.W., Steel, R.P., Allen, D.G., & Bryan, N. (2005). The development of amultidimensional measure of job market cognitions: The Employment Opportunity

Index (EOI). Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(2), 335349.

Groot, W., & Maassen-Van der Brink, H. (2000). Education, training and employability.

Applied Economics, 32, 573581.

7/31/2019 De Cuper i in. 2008-1

20/22



Heany, C., Israel, B., & House, J. (1994). Chronic job insecurity among automobile

workers: Effects on job satisfaction and health. Social Science and Medicine,

38(10), 14311437.

Hellgren, J., & Sverke, M. (2003). Does job insecurity lead to impaired well-beingor vice versa? Estimation of cross-lagged effects using latent variable modelling.

Journal of Organizational Behavior,24(2), 215236.

Hillage, J., & Pollard, E. (1998). Employability: Developing a framework for policy

analysis. Research Brief 85, DFEE, London.

Hiltrop, J.M. (1995). The changing psychological contract: The human resource

challenge of the 1990s. European Management Journal, 13(3), 286294.

Isaksson, K., Bernhard, C., Claes, R., De Witte, H., Guest, D., Krausz, M., Peir,

J.M., Mohr, G., & Schalk, R. (2003). Employment contracts and psychological

contracts in Europe. Results from a Pilotstudy. SALTSA Report, 1.

Jahoda, M. (1982). Employment and unemployment: A social-psychological analysis.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kinnunen, U., & Ntti, J. (1994). Job insecurity in Finland: Antecedents and

consequences. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 4(3),

297321.

Kluytmans, F., & Ott, M. (1999). Management of employability in the Netherlands.

European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8(2), 261272.

Koh, W.L., & Yer, L.K. (2000). The impact of employeeorganization relationship

on temporary employees performance and attitudes: Testing a Signaporean

sample. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 11(2), 366387.

Kuhnert, K.W., & Vance, R.J. (1992). Job insecurity and moderators of the relation

between job insecurity and employee adjustment. In J.C. Quick, L.R. Murphy,

& J.J. Hurrell (Eds.), Stress and well-being at work. Washington, DC: APA.

Lambert, L., Edwards, J.R., & Cable, D.M. (2003). Breach and fulfillment of the

psychological contract: A comparison of traditional and expanded views. Personnel

Psychology, 56, 895934.

Lazarus, R.S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal and coping. New York:

Springer Publishing Company.

Lim, V. (1997). Moderating effects of work-base support on the relationship

between job insecurity and its consequences. Work & Stress, 11(3), 251266.McQuaid, R.W., & Lindsay, C. (2005). The concept of employability. Urban Studies,

42(2), 197219.

March, J.G., & Simon, H.A. (1958). Organizations. New York: John Wiley.

Marler, J.H., Barringer, M.W., & Milkovich, G.T. (2002). Boundaryless and

traditional contingent employees: Worlds apart. Journal of Organizational Behavior,

23, 425453.

Mauno, S., & Kinnunen, U. (2002). Perceived job insecurity among dual earner

couples: Do its antecedents vary according to gender, economic sector and the

measure used? Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75, 295

314.Millward, L.J., & Brewerton, P.M. (2000). Psychological contracts: Employee

relations for the twenty-first century? In C.L. Cooper & I.T. Robertson (Eds.),

International review of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 15, pp. 161).

New York: John Wiley & Sons.

7/31/2019 De Cuper i in. 2008-1

21/22



Mohr, G.B. (2000). The changing significance of different stressors after the

announcement of bankruptcy: A longitudinal investigation with special emphasis

on job insecurity. Journal of Organizational Behaviour,21, 337 359.

Nswall, K. (2004). The buffering effect of employability on job insecurityoutcomes. Poster presented at the XXVIII International Congress of Psychology,

813 August, Beijing, China.

Nswall, K. (2005). Job insecurity and well-being: Moderating factors of a negative

relationship. Paper presented at the 12th European Congress on Work and

Organizational Psychology, 1215 May, Istanbul.

Nswall, K., & De Witte, H. (2003). Who feels insecure in Europe? Predicting job

insecurity from background variables. Economic and Industrial Democracy,24(2),

189215.

Nelson, A., Cooper, C., & Jackson, P. (1995). Uncertainty amidst change: The

impact of privatization on employee job satisfaction and well-being. Journal of

Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 68, 5771.

Pfeffer, J. (1998). The human equation. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Podsakoff, P.M., Mackenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y., & Podsakoff, N.P. (2003). Common

method bias in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recom-

mended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879903.

Rigotti, T., Mohr, G., De Cuyper, N., De Witte, H., Bernhard, C., Isaksson, K., de

Jong, J., Schalk, R., Caballer, A., Gracia, F., Peir, J.M., Ramos, J., Clinton,

M., Guest, D., Krausz, M., & Staynvarts, N. (2003). Instruction work and blue

print for methodology. Unpublished research report. Leipzig, Germany.

Rousseau, D.M. (1995). Psychological contracts in organizations: Understanding

written and unwritten agreements. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Schaufeli, W. (1992). Unemployment and mental health in well and poorly educated

schoolleavers. In C. Verhaar & L. Jansma (Eds.), On the mysteries of unemployment:

Causes, consequences and policies (pp. 253271). Dordrecht, The Netherlands:

Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Schaufeli, W., & Bakker, A. (2001). Werk en welbevinden: Naar een positieve benadering

in de arbeids-en gezondheidspsychologie [Work and well-being: Towards a positive

approach within work and health psychology]. Gedrag en Organisatie, 17, 229252.

Schaufeli, W., & Bakker, A. (2003). UWES: Utrecht Work Engagement Scale.Occupational Health Psychology Unit, Universiteit Utrecht.

Schaufeli, W., & Bakker, A. (2004). Bevlogenheid: Een begrip gemeten [Engagement:

measurement]. Gedrag & Organisatie, 17, 89112.

Shore, L.M., & Barksdale, K. (1998). Examinig degree of balance and level of obli-

gation in the employment relationship: A social exchange approach. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 19(SI), 731744.

Sobel, M.E. (1982). Asymptotic intervals for indirect effects in structural equation

models. Sociological Methodology, 13, 290312.

Sparks, K., Faragher, B., & Cooper, C.L. (2001). Well-being and occupational

health in the 21st century workplace. Journal of Occupational and OrganizationalPsychology, 74, 489509.

Spector, P.E. (1987). Method variance as an artifact in self-reported affect and

perceptions at work: Myth or significant problem? Journal of Applied Psychology,

82, 434443.

7/31/2019 De Cuper i in. 2008-1

22/22


2008 The Authors. Journal compilation 2008 International Association of Applied

Storm, K., & Rothman, S. (2003). The validation of the Utrecht Work Engagement

Scale in the South African police services. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology,

29, 6270.

Sullivan, S.E. (1999). The changing nature of careers: A review and research agenda.Journal of Management,25(3), 457484.

Sverke, M., & Hellgren, J. (2002). The nature of job insecurity: Understanding

employment uncertainty on the brink of a new millennium. Applied Psychology:

An International Review, 51(1), 2342.

Sverke, M., Hellgren, J., & Nswall, K. (2002). No security: A meta-analysis and

review of job insecurity and its consequences. Journal of Occupational Health

Psychology, 7(3), 242264.

Szab, K., & Ngyesi, A. (2005). The spread of contingent work in the knowledge-

based economy. Human Resource Development Review, 4(1), 6385.

Trevor, C.O. (2001). Interactions among actual ease-of-movement determinants and

job satisfaction in the prediction of voluntary turnover. Academy of Management

Journal, 44(4), 621638.

Tsui, A.S., Pearce, J.L., Porter, L.W., & Tripoli, A.M. (1997). Alternative

approaches to the employeeorganization relationship: Does investment in

employees pay off ? Academy of Management Journal, 40(5), 10891121.

Van Buren, H. (2003). Boundaryless careers and employability obligations. Business

Ethics Quarterly, 13(2), 131149.

Van Dam, K. (2004). Antecedents and consequences of the employability orientation.

European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 13(1), 2951.

Van Vuuren, T. (1990). Met ontslag bedreigd. Werknemers in onzekerheid over hun

arbeidsplaats bij veranderingen in de organisatie [Threat of dismissal: Job insecu-

rity during organizational changes]. Amsterdam: VU Uitgeverij.

Van Vuuren, T., Klandermans, B., Jacobson, D., & Hartley, J. (1991). Employees

reactions to job insecurity. In J. Hartley, D. Jacobson, B. Klandermans, & T. van

Vuuren (Eds.), Job insecurity: Coping with jobs at risk(pp. 6578). London: Sage.

Virtanen, M., Kivimki, M., Virtanen, P., Elovainio, M., & Vahtera, J. (2003).

Disparity in occupational training and career planning between contingent and

permanent employees. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology,

12(1), 1936.Wiens-Tuers, B., & Hill, E.T. (2002). Do they bother? Employer training of temporary

workers. Review of Social Economy, 60(4), 543566.

Worth, S. (2002). Education and employability: School leavers attitudes to the prospect

of non-standard work. Journal of Education and Work, 15(2), 163179.

de cuper i in. 2008-1

Documents