1. Saija Mauno, University of Jyväskylä Anne Mäkikangas, University of Jyväskylä Ulla Kinnunen, University of Tampere FINLAND The effects of long-term temporary work compared to permanent work on perceived work characteristics and well- being: A three-wave study EUROCIETT MEETING LEUVEN, 27.10-28.10. 2011

2. Background We lack information whether long-term temporary work has negative effects on employees’ work experiences and well-being When temporary job contract becomes longer it might have negative effects on employees’ in line with the ’trap- hypothesis’ Eearlier longitudinal studies are few and partly consistent with this reasoning (see Kompier et al. 2009; Mauno et al. 2011; Parker et al. 2002) In Finland, also long-term temporary contracts are possible, and do exist in certain fields, providing a good starting point to examine their long-term effects

3. Aim and Hypothesis To investigate whether long-term temporary employees report negative, or even positive, changes in their perceived work characteristics and well-being over time Hypothesis: their experiences on work characteristics and well-being will become more negative over time (trap-view) Work characteristics: workload, insecurity, control, co- worker support & supervisory justice Well-being indicators: vigor at work, job satisfaction, job exhaustion, stress symptoms & life satisfaction Long-term temporary employees, LTT-group, had the fixed-term contract at minimum for 3 years Long-term permanent, LTP-group, employees formed the comparison group

4. Participants On-going research project ”Are temporary workers a disadvantaged group?”/Academy of Finland  For more, see De Cuyper et al. 2011; Kinnunen et al. 2011; Kirves et al. 2011; Mauno et al. 2011 Participants represented Finnish university employees from two rather similar universities Temporary contracts are very common in Finnish universities (50-60%) On-line questionnaire was filled out in three waves  2008=T1, 2009=T2, 2010=T3 Altogether 926 participants in all three waves  Of them, 318 were in LTT-group and 297 in LTP-group: N = 615 (66% of all T1, T2, T3 respondents)

5. Group Differences at T1 in Backgrounds Background factorLTT-group %LTP-group % Women3234 Mean age M (SD)37 (9)50 (8)*** > Master’s degree2023* Supervisory position1018*** Weekly working hours M (SD)41 (6)42 (8) Job tenure M (SD)13 (9)26 (9)*** Earlier temporary contracts M (SD)13 (12)***9 (8) Children at home2538*** Spouse permanently employed2637*** Economic stress2.40 (.78)***2.16 (.80) * The difference is statistically significant. Typical/higher for this group.

6. Measures ScaleReferenceNo.of items/ (rating) Alphas T1, T2, T3 Job insecurityDe Witte 20004 (1-7).91,.93,.91 WorkloadQPS Nordic3 (1-5).83,.80,.83 Job controlQPS Nordic4 (1-5).73,.72,.74 Support (co-worker)QPS Nordic2 (1-5).84,.84,.86 Justice (supervisor)QPS Nordic2 (1-5).91,.91,.90 Vigor at workSchaufeli et al. 20063 (1-7).88,.90,.91 Job satisafactionOne-item based1 (1-7) Job exhaustionMaslach et al. 19963 (1-7).89,.88,.90 Stress symptomsLehto & Sutela 20086 (1-6).87,.88,.88 Life satisfactionOne-item-based1 (1-7)

7. Results on Group Differences for Work Characteristics & Well-being Scale LabelGroup x Time Interactions Group Main EffectTime Main Effect InsecurityF=1.78, p=.169F=210.23, p=.000, T > PF=0.89, p=.411 WorkloadF=0.16, p=.853F=15.69, p=.009, P > TF=0.66, p=.517 Control (fig.1)F=4.56,p=.011F=11.08, p=.001, T > PF=2.10, p=.124 Support (fig.2)F=3.76,p=.024F=0.27, p=.605F=0.54, p=585 Justice (fig.3)F=3.56,p=.035F=0.62, p=.804F=0.39, p=.679 Vigor at workF=1.70, p=.184F=0.55, p=.457F=0.77, p=.462 J. satisfactionF=2.89,p=.057F=0.13, p=.722F=0.40, p=.669 J. exhaustionF=1.08, p=.342F=0.18, p=.674F=0.40, p=.961 SymptomsF=0.64, p=.529F=0.17, p=.677F=0.99, p=.489 L. satisfactionF=0.29,p=.747F=1.03, p=.310F=0.15, p=.860 Analysis of Variance for Repeated Measures. Adjusted for gender, education and age Note. T=temporary employees, P=Permanent employees

8. Figure 1: Job control

9. Figure 2: Co-worker support

10. Figure 3: Justice

11. Conclusions (1) No decrease among LTT or LTP workers in well-being  Are some mediators involved, e.g., job characteristics?  Poorer work characteristics may cause poorer well-being LTT workers reported a decrease in co-worker support and supervisory justice over time  Temporary workers have less job resources when temporary contract is getting a ’more permanent’ arrangement An increase in support at T2 among LTP workers  Organizational changes in were launched at T2  LTT workers in worse position in organizational changes?

12. Conclusions (2) A very modest decrease in job control among LTT workers, whereas LTP workers showed a very modest increase over time LTT workers reported higher job control compared to LTP workers at each time point (strong main effect)  Position might matter: LTP workers are in high-status jobs, i.e., as professors, lecturers, senior researchers, implying more workload but also less job control  Strong main effect for workload (P > T) at T1, T2, T3 LTT work means more perceived job insecurity  Very strong main effect at T1, T2, T3 (T > P)  Implications for well-being? Job insecurity is a severe stressor

13. To Be Examined... Does poorer work characteristics operate as mediators between contract type and well-being?  More negative changes found in work characteristics  See the findings by Kompier et al. 2009; Mauno et al. 2011 Does age or earlier temporary career line moderate the relationships?  Older LTT workers -> more negative perceptions?  Earlier temporary working career -> more negative perceptions? Contract transitions were not yet investigated  34% of the respondents were excluded from this study  Contract transitions complex in multi-wave data (small groups)

14. Thanks for your attention! ask more: saija.mauno@jyu.fi This study was supported by the Academy of Finland (grant numbers 124360, 218260)