Staying in or switching between permanent,temporary and self-employment during 2008–2010: Associations with changing job characteristics and emotional exhaustion

Abstract

Labour market segmentation theories suggest that permanent and temporary workers are exposed to economic risks to different degrees, and differ in their working life quality and well-being. However, few studies have tested these ideas during times of economic crisis. Also, little is known about how the self-employed compare to permanent and temporary workers and are affected by economic downturns. This study investigated Swedish workers in different labour market segments before and after the financial crisis (2008 and 2010). More specifically, it looked at job characteristics and strain differences between permanent, temporary and self-employed workers. Data (N = 6335) came from SLOSH, a longitudinal representative cohort study of the Swedish workforce. Contradicting segmentation theories, differences between permanent and temporary workers were small. The self-employed stood out with favourable job characteristics, but comparable strain levels. During the crisis, work demands and strain declined for many of the workers studied here.

Keywords

Changing employment status changing job characteristics economic crisis emotional exhaustion self-employment temporary work

The collapse of Lehman Brothers in September 2008 may have marked the start of the latest global financial crisis for many, but in fact, leading economists had warned about an economic crisis long before that (The Economist, 2013). Throughout 2008–2009, employment rates dropped and unemployment rates increased in all European countries except Germany (Eurofound, 2013). Sweden was not immune to this global crisis but recovered remarkably quickly (Irwin, 2011). With a highly open economy, the country was hit fast with a remarkable fall in GPD, a drop of 10% in exports, and an increase in layoffs (Jochem, 2010). However, Sweden had strong pre-crisis public finances (Hassler, 2010). The Swedish approach to crisis management combined fiscal and tax policies to stimulate business and private consumption, and spending on infrastructure, public employment, student loans, vocational training and active labour market policies (Jochem, 2010). Also, the established welfare system provided automatic stabilizers (OECD, 2009).

The crisis affected different industrial sectors to varying degrees, and in Sweden, the engineering and manufacturing industry was hit the hardest (Jochem, 2010). With a segmentation of the labour market into more versus less protected employment forms, workers were exposed to economic decline and post-crisis recovery in different ways. Temporary workers are often the first to be laid off in bad economic times (Voss et al., 2013), and employment concentrates intensively on permanent workers. Thus, temporary workers may have been especially vulnerable in times of crisis. Indeed, in Sweden the proportion of temporary work contracts declined from 16.0% in 2008 to 15.2% in 2009, but rose again in 2010 to 16.4% (OECD, 2018). For permanent workers the crisis mainly brought a cutback in working hours, declines in salary development and increased job insecurity, although countries in Southern and Eastern Europe were affected more than Northern countries such as Sweden (Bock-Schappelwein and Fuchs, 2010; Eurofound, 2013).

A group that is seldom scrutinized and compared to permanent and temporary workers is the self-employed. Throughout Europe, the absolute number of self-employed individuals has declined slightly since the economic crisis (Bock-Schappelwein and Fuchs, 2010; Henley, 2015). In Sweden, the number of newly registered businesses remained stable in 2008–2009, and increased thereafter (Ekonomifakta, 2016). Temporary and self-employed workers may be viewed as comparable as both groups are more directly exposed to economic cycles and changes in labour demand than permanent workers. At the same time, the self-employed, in contrast to temporary workers, may have better options to deal with such challenges, for example by adjusting their amount of work (Obschonka and Silbereisen, 2015). Self-employed workers often work more hours than employees, and although working hours in self-employment showed a larger decline during the crisis years, this difference remained (Eurofound, 2013).

Earlier research either compared self-employed workers to (all types of) wage earners (e.g. Obschonka and Silbereisen, 2015; Stephan and Roesler, 2010) or organizationally employed permanent to temporary employees (Guest et al., 2010). A main focus in both research streams was to understand whether differences in employment also bring about differences in job characteristics, which mainly have been studied based on the demand–control–support (DCS) model (Johnson and Hall, 1988; Karasek and Theorell, 1990). These job characteristics (work demands, control and social support) are regarded as important resources to prevent the development of chronic strain such as emotional exhaustion, which is known to be an early indicator of burnout (Toppinen-Tanner et al., 2002). However, studying either self-employed vs employed workers, or permanent vs temporary workers means that very little is known as to how permanent vs temporary workers compare to the self-employed in job characteristics described in the DCS model. Also, since many studies on contractual comparisons were undertaken before the crisis (De Cuyper et al., 2008), little is known about whether workers in different types of employment were affected by the crisis in similar or different ways.

To address this lacuna, this article compares permanent, temporary and self-employed workers in the Swedish labour market with respect to stability versus change in job characteristics (job demand, in particular work load and time pressure, job control and social support) and psychological strain (emotional exhaustion) between 2008 and 2010. The study makes important contributions to increase our knowledge about how workers in different segments of the labour market managed the crisis, which had led to significant cutbacks, particularly for the temporary workforce. Thus, the study tests whether temporary workers were the most vulnerable group as compared to permanent workers, and extends earlier research by adding a comparison with the self-employed. Finally, the study explores how job characteristics and strain have changed for those who switch between different segments of the labour market (e.g. between temporary and permanent work) during this challenging period.

The segmentation of the labour market: A core–periphery perspective

Permanent, temporary and self-employed workers are found in different segments of the labour market and face different working conditions (Bernhard-Oettel et al., 2017). As outlined in segmentation theories (Aronsson et al., 2002; Atkinson, 1984; Doeringer and Piore, 1971), the core segment of the labour market consists of permanent, full-time employees. These employees are valuable for the employer since they provide functional flexibility, high skills and knowledge (Kalleberg, 2001). In return, they are typically given training opportunities, a good salary, challenging work tasks and high employment security (De Cuyper et al., 2008). Thus, permanent workers often have favourable job conditions (when compared to temporary employees) characterized by more autonomy, more responsibilities, more social support, and more stimulating work (Wagenaar et al., 2012a).

In contrast, temporary workers take a peripheral position and provide the organization with numerical flexibility (Kalleberg, 2001), and are typically hired on a project basis, as substitutes for a permanent employee, on hourly or daily contracts, or as seasonal workers (Aronsson et al., 2002). Naturally, temporary workers are exposed to higher risks of employment loss. Being outside the core of the company, investment in their training is often kept to a minimum (Isaksson et al., 2010). Compared to permanent workers, working life quality such as physical working conditions, job demands or autonomy has been found to be less favourable for temporary workers, whose jobs are more often characterized as stressful (combining high work load with low control) or passive (low work load and low control) (Bernhard-Oettel et al., 2005; Parker et al., 2002; Wagenaar et al., 2012a). Also, being contracted on a temporary basis may prevent the development of social ties and thus reduce the availability of social support (De Cuyper et al., 2008).

The majority of self-employed independent contractors, business owners and entrepreneurs are either sole employers, such as independent contractors (Gallagher and Sverke, 2005), or have micro- (up to 10 employees), small- (up to 50 employees) or, in some cases, medium-sized (up to 250 employees) businesses (Eurofound, 2012). The core–periphery perspective does not include the self-employed, but we argue that employing themselves and perhaps others, their business may be viewed as a satellite in the core–periphery model: it can attach itself to the client organization for the time of a contracted task, but always maintains its independence. For the self-employed their own employees, if they have any, may in themselves represent (smaller) core–periphery structures with the self-employed owner-manager at the core. Often, the self-employed are portrayed as a group combining high levels of entrepreneurial autonomy and freedom (Van Gelderen, 2016) with high work load and responsibilities (Stephan and Roesler, 2010). Perceived work-related support was found to be lower for entrepreneurs than managers in an early study (Rahim, 1996), but when available, work-related support seems to boost successful businesses and individual well-being (Pullich et al., 2011; Stephan and Uhlaner, 2010).

In sum, whereas core versus periphery segments differentiate permanent and temporary workers, the self-employed seem to share elements of both: like permanent workers, they have active jobs with autonomy and demanding work; like temporary workers, their employment (and that of their employees) may be at risk, especially in times of economic decline. In contrast to both permanent and temporary workers, the self-employed are directly confronted with all business decisions and have to adjust their work organization in order to avoid entrepreneurial failure (Obschonka and Silbereisen, 2015).

Consequences of labour market segmentation for well-being

The demand–control–support model (DCS model, Johnson and Hall, 1988; Karasek and Theorell, 1990), also referred to as the job-strain model (Schnall et al., 1994), has frequently been applied to study job characteristics as potential predictors for work-related strain among the different employment groups. While the core–periphery model predicts a poorer work environment for temporary workers, the DCS model helps to explain how these conditions, predominantly with respect to low control and less support combined with high work demands, induce strain and thus contribute to ill-health. We would thus expect a well-being gradient, with permanent and perhaps also self-employed workers having less psychological strain and thus better well-being than temporary workers. However, empirical findings are not so straightforward.

Some studies indeed found that temporary workers had impaired well-being compared to permanent workers (Aronsson et al., 2002; Virtanen M et al., 2005), whereas others reported no evidence of impaired well-being among temporary workers (Bardasi and Francesconi, 2004; Virtanen P et al., 2002). A large European study concluded that temporary workers, when compared to permanent employees, reported less distress and more job satisfaction, partly explained by the fact that permanent workers were more likely to perceive that their psychological contract had been breached or violated (Guest et al., 2010). Recent evidence showed that on-call workers had better well-being than temporary agency workers, whereas permanent and temporary workers employed directly by organizations rarely differed (Wagenaar et al., 2012a).

Since much of the existing evidence is cross-sectional, we argue that longitudinal studies following employment groups over time would put segmentation theories to more rigorous tests. For example, there may be important differences between workers who switch to and from versus remain in the core or periphery segment (De Cuyper et al., 2009). However, cross-sectional studies do not allow us to disentangle these groups. Also, cross-sectional evidence cannot shed light on the question of whether the well-being of core and periphery employment groups changes, and if so, whether it changes in the same way along with fluctuations in economic conditions.

Turning to the self-employed, findings based on Swedish or larger European data are also inconsistent. Some studies have found that the self-employed reported more work-related stress than employees (Prottas and Thompson, 2006), whereas others found better psychological well-being reflected in job and life satisfaction (Andersson, 2008; Johansson et al., 2016) as well as better self-rated health and fewer sickness absence days (Stephan and Roesler, 2010). Yet others reported no differences (Nordenmark et al., 2012). However, comparisons have mainly been made to all wage earners irrespective of their employment contract. Here again, a better differentiation of the core and periphery segments and repeated measures over time seem warranted to gain more insights into how the self-employed compare to the different core and periphery groups in the labour market.

Job characteristics and well-being for those who remain in stable permanent, temporary and self-employment over time

Drawing on core–periphery theory and on the limited available research evidence, a first assumption could be that those who remain in stable permanent, temporary or self-employment over time should have rather stable job characteristics and related to that, their levels of well-being should also remain unchanged (De Cuyper et al., 2009; Wagenaar et al., 2012a). In particular, the self-employed may have most autonomy but also very high job demands in terms of work load, leading to active jobs (Stephan and Roesler, 2010). Even permanent workers at the core of the company often are in positions with high control and high to moderate, manageable, work demands, and this combination is characteristic for either active jobs (high control/high demands) or low strain jobs (high control, low work demands) (Parker et al., 2002). Temporary workers often have fewer work tasks (Wagenaar et al., 2012a) and less demanding work roles (Parker et al., 2002): their jobs may thus be classified as passive jobs (low control combined with low demands). In fact, a recent study found that permanent workers most often had active and low strain jobs, whereas temporary workers most often had passive jobs, but also high strain jobs. This means that whereas their control is generally low, work demands may be too few or rather many, and the difference may be explained by the fact that different types of temporary workers are made use of for different organizational functions, such as performing extra work, or substituting an ordinary worker (Aronsson et al., 2002). Businesses have higher long-term survival in supportive environments, which are characterized by helpfulness and cooperation, and often found in Asian and Nordic countries (Stephan and Uhlaner, 2010). Thus, being in stable self-employment in Sweden may mean getting a fair level of social support. Social support should also be higher for those in permanent than temporary contracts (De Cuyper et al., 2008). In line with this, a first hypothesis suggests between-group differences between the satellites (the self-employed), the core and periphery of an organization. Moreover, we argue that these between-group differences exist at T1 and T2 for the stable employment groups:

Hypothesis 1: There are between-group differences between workers in stable permanent, temporary and self-employment in job characteristics (job demands, job control and social support) and strain (emotional exhaustion) at T1 and T2. More specifically, the self-employed are expected to report most, and temporary workers least favourable job characteristics, and strain levels are expected to differ accordingly.

However, when economic circumstances change, this may affect the labour market segments and thus, their job characteristics and perceived strain. One possibility is that all employment groups are affected in equal ways. For example, during the financial crisis between 2008 and 2010, Swedish labour market statistics suggest that work intensity (feeling of having too much to do) decreased (Eurofound, 2013). Another European report (Gallie, 2013) found that job control increased during the crisis in Southern and Eastern European countries, and this was explained by, first, the fact that predominantly those jobs requiring low skills and allowing low levels of job control were cut, and second, the finding that companies tend to give more control to their employees when they have to restructure (Eurofound, 2013). It is questionable whether such changes are equally distributed across the different segments of the labour market that fulfil different functions. For example, it may be that on average, permanent workers gain more job control than temporary workers in times of restructuring, since permanent workers are more experienced and better trained for different work roles and tasks. Arguably, providing more training opportunities, or reducing working hours for all employees in order to secure jobs during the crisis (Eurofound, 2013) could increase perceptions of social support and a sense of unity. Yet again, it could also be questioned whether perceived social support increases independently of position in the core–periphery or only in groups such as permanent workers, who – on average – have more work-related support than temporary workers. However, neither of the European reports indicates such potential sub-group differences. Therefore, our second hypothesis assumes a time effect due to the economic crisis in the satellite, the core and periphery of an organization. In other words, we suggest that the levels of job demands, job control, social support and emotional exhaustion change in all stable employment groups between T1 and T2:

Hypothesis 2: There are within-group changes for workers in stable permanent, temporary and self-employment in job characteristics (job demands, job control and social support) and strain (emotional exhaustion) from T1 to T2. More specifically, job demands and emotional exhaustion are expected to decrease, and job control as well as social support to increase for all three stable groups.

Job characteristics and well-being for those switching between permanent, temporary and self-employment

Turning to those switching their employment form across time, a widely held assumption is that switchers adapt and accordingly, their job characteristics and reported strain levels should change. We will first discuss potential changes between the core and the periphery of an organization – that is between permanent and temporary work – and thereafter turn to changes to and from satellites, that is, self-employment.

Switches between permanent and temporary work

Such changes have often been assumed to follow the logic of the core–periphery model: a transition towards the core should improve job quality and well-being (Wagenaar et al., 2012b), and a transition to the periphery should be accompanied by impairments in job quality and well-being (De Cuyper et al., 2009). However, the evidence is contradictory. For example, some studies have found that a transition from permanent to temporary work was paralleled by an increase in work engagement and commitment (De Cuyper et al., 2009), and in job satisfaction and social support (Wagenaar et al., 2012b). Other studies found that temporary-to-permanent employees developed comparable levels of reported sickness absenteeism (Virtanen M et al., 2003), and work role demands (Parker et al., 2002) as permanent workers. However, common to all of these findings is that adjustments or adaptations take place as the switches into the new group occur. In light of these findings, our third hypothesis reads:

Hypothesis 3a: Those switching between temporary and permanent employment adapt to the group they switch to in terms of their job characteristics (job demands, job control, social support) and strain (emotional exhaustion).

An alternative scenario is that few changes in the work and well-being among those who switch employment type are to be expected, and this scenario may be explained by selection mechanisms. For example, healthy workers are more likely to move from temporary to permanent positions, whereas unhealthy workers with impaired well-being run a higher risk of moving from permanent to temporary employment (De Cuyper et al., 2009) or unemployment (Wagenaar et al., 2012c). Furthermore, some employers hire high potentials such as recent university graduates first on a temporary or project contract to test them before they offer permanent employment (Guest et al., 2010). Such temporary workers are already likely to work in active jobs with high levels of control before they become permanent workers. Thus, if selection mechanisms occur job characteristics and health and well-being variables already differ before transitions between the core and periphery take place. Looking at the existing evidence, De Cuyper et al. (2009) did not find selection effects in transitions between permanent and temporary work, whereas two other studies point to selection effects, particularly when unemployment is also included as a possible outcome (Virtanen P et al., 2005; Wagenaar et al., 2012c). Thus an alternative third hypothesis on selection can be formulated, as follows:

Hypothesis 3b: Employees switching between temporary and permanent employment are already, at T1, like the group they switch to at T2 in terms of job characteristics (job demands, job control, social support) and strain (emotional exhaustion).

Switches to and from self-employment

It is possible that individuals also switch from and to self-employment and here, adaptation or selection mechanisms may also play a role. For example, it may be that both permanent and temporary workers gain job control, and perceive higher demands after switching to self-employment. However, it is also possible that only those employees who are used to high control and demanding tasks take the step into self-employment. Likewise, it is conceivable that self-employed individuals who switch to (permanent or temporary) employment do so since they seek to reduce job demands. However, since earlier research has rarely studied changes with regard to job characteristics in more detail, and most of all, not differentiated between core and peripheral (permanent and temporary) employment, the existence and nature of switches to and from self-employment are explored without formulating an a priori hypothesis.

Method

Data collection

The study population consisted of the participants in the SLOSH (Swedish Longitudinal Occupational Survey of Health) study, a longitudinal cohort survey with a focus on the association between work organization, work environment and health. The SLOSH sample is drawn from respondents to the Swedish Work Environment Surveys (SWES) and all data collection is conducted by Statistics Sweden. SLOSH is a biennial postal survey which began in 2006 (response rate = 65%, N = 5989) with follow-ups conducted in 2008 (response rate = 61%, N = 11,441), 2010 (response rate = 57%, N = 11,525), and every second year thereafter. A detailed description of the SLOSH cohort can be found elsewhere (Magnusson Hanson et al., 2018). For this article, all respondents in paid work who had indicated their employment status as either permanent or temporary contract (as project employees, substitutes for a permanent worker, or hourly contracted) or self-employment in 2008 and 2010 were selected (N = 6335). The data for time one (T1) of this study were collected in spring 2008 and thus reflect the time before the crisis noticeably hit Sweden, whereas data for time two (T2) were collected in spring 2010, when the economy showed the first signs of recovery.

Sample description

The majority of the analytic sample held a permanent contract at both time points of the study (N = 5572, labelled group 1, PP). As illustrated in Table 1, a second group with N = 82 individuals were temporary workers at both time points (TT). The third group who were self-employed at both time points (SS) comprised N = 330 individuals. Aside from these three groups with stable employment status, there are six possible combinations of changes. There were 117 individuals who had a permanent job in 2008 and a temporary contract in 2010 (PT, group 4), and 135 individuals switched from temporary to permanent employment (TP, group 5). A sixth group comprised N = 55 individuals who had a permanent contract in 2008, but were self-employed in 2010 (PS). Vice versa, N = 33 individuals were initially self-employed, but had a permanent contract two years later (SP). Only five individuals changed from temporary employment to self-employment (TS), and six individuals changed from self-employment to temporary employment (ST). Both of these groups (TS and ST) were excluded from the analyses due to their small size and internal attrition (missing data in relevant variables of job characteristics and emotional exhaustion).

Table 1.

Stable and changing employment groups in 2008 and 2010 (N = 6335).

		2008
		Permanent employmentN = 5744	Temporary employmentN = 222	Self-employmentN = 369
2010	Permanent employment N = 5740	(1) PP N = 5572	(5) TP N = 135	(7) SP N = 33
	Temporary employment N = 205	(4) PT N = 117	(2) TT N = 82	(9) ST N = 6
	Self-employment N = 390	(6) PS N = 55	(8) TS N = 5	(3) SS N = 330

Internal attrition also affected other groups and the final sample analysed in this article comprised a total of N = 5407 individuals who were distributed in the different employment status groups as follows: (1) PP: 4917, (2) TT: 70, (3) SS: 160, (4) PT: 106, (5) TP: 115, (6) PS: 31, (7) SP: 21.

As can be seen in Table 2, these employment status groups differed significantly in age, gender and education. Those in stable self-employment were significantly older than all other groups except for the SP group. TP switchers were significantly younger than stable permanent workers and permanent workers switching to temporary status. The percentage of females was highest in the TT group, and the TP group. The percentage of men was highest in the SS and the SP group. Stable self-employed and those moving from permanent to temporary work comprised the lowest proportion with university education. Stable temporary workers and those switching from temporary to permanent work comprised the highest percentage with a university education.

Table 2.

Background characteristics for employment groups.

	Stable groups			Transitions perm–temp employment		Transitions self-employment to employment		F/ χ²	Multiple comparisons
	(1) PP	(2) TT	(3) SS	(4) PT	(5) TP	(6) PS	(7) SP
N	4917	70	160	106	115	31	21
Age	48.4	47.1	51.4	47.4	43.0	45.0	46.1	9.9***	3>1,2,4,5,6; 5<1;4
Gender (% female)	56.7	67.1	33.1	54.7	72.2	38.7	23.8	63.38***
Education (% univ.)	47.1	52.9	33.8	38.7	48.7	41.9	42.9	15.48*

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

Note: PP = permanent–permanent employment; TT = temporary–temporary employment; SS = self-employment–self-employment; PT = permanent to temporary employment; TP = temporary to permanent employment; PS = permanent to self-employment; SP = self-employment to permanent employment.

Measures

DCSQ

Psychological demands and control at work were measured by the Swedish Demand–Control–Support Questionnaire (DCSQ) (Karasek and Theorell, 1990). Job demands cover five items of quantitative demands (e.g. ‘Do you have to work very fast?’). The scale had acceptable reliability (α_T1 = .72, α_T2 = .73). The six questions measuring job control cover two areas: skill discretion and decision authority. All questions have a four-grade response scale from ‘never’ to ‘always’, and reliability was satisfactory (α_T1 = .73, α_T2 = .78). Social support at work was measured with six questions based on the DCSQ (e.g. ‘There is a good spirit of unity’) with four response options from ‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree’. The scale had good reliability (α_T1 = .84, α_T2 = .85).

Emotional exhaustion

Emotional exhaustion is one of the three dimensions of burnout (exhaustion, depersonalization and personal accomplishment) and was based on a subscale from the Burnout Inventory Scale developed by Maslach et al. (2001). It is considered to be the core symptom of the burnout syndrome that develops first and indicates chronic strain (Toppinen-Tanner et al., 2002). The scale covers five questions with example items such as ‘I feel emotionally drained from my work’ and ‘I feel burned out from my work’. Response options ranged from 1 (‘every day’) to 5 (‘a few times a year or less/never’) and were reversed so that high scores indicated higher levels in emotional exhaustion. The scale was reliable at both time points (α_T1 = .87, α_T2 = .88).

Covariates

Age (in years at T1), sex (0 = male, 1 = female) and academic education (0 = high school or below; 1 = university studies) were included as covariates, since employment groups typically differ in these covariates such as that self-employment is more common among men than women, temporary workers often are younger than permanent workers, and often, temporary workers are either highly skilled or have rather low levels of education (De Cuyper et al., 2008). Furthermore, it is well documented in epidemiology that being older, female and having low education is associated with decreases in well-being and health. Information about the chosen covariates was obtained from register data linked to questionnaire responses by means of the unique Swedish 10-digit personal identification numbers.

Analytic strategy

To answer our research questions, we ran a repeated measures MANCOVA with age, gender and education as covariates, time as the within-group variable and employment group as the between-group variable. For the hypothesis concerning between-group differences at T1 or T2, we calculated simple F-tests and effect sizes of employment groups at each point in time, and inspected follow-up pairwise comparisons. For the research hypothesis concerning within-group changes, we inspected the multivariate effect of employment groups*time interaction for job characteristics and exhaustion, and calculated Bonferroni post-hoc tests as well as Cohen’s d to estimate significant within-group changes over time and the size of these effects.

Results

Hypothesis 1: Differences in stable groups at both time points

Results of the MANCOVA showed that there was a significant multivariate effect of the employment groups on job characteristics and emotional exhaustion (Pillai’s trace = .27, F_{(24, 21640)} = 6.08, p < .000, partial η² = .007). More specifically, the groups differed in job demands (F_{(6, 5407)} = 3.29, p < .01, partial η² = .004), job control (F_{(6, 5407)} = 18.12, p < .000, partial η² = .020) and social support (F_{(6, 5407)} = 6.64, p < .000, partial η² = .007), but not in emotional exhaustion (F_{(6, 5407)} = 1.61, p > .05, partial η² = .002). In Table 3, the reported levels of job characteristics and emotional exhaustion are compared. As can be seen for the stable groups, job demands did not differ at T1. However, at T2 permanent workers reported significantly more demands than self-employed workers. The self-employed had significantly higher job control compared to permanent and temporary employees both at T1 and T2, whereas the latter two groups did not differ. The stable self-employment group also reported significantly higher social support than permanent employees (at T1 and T2), and temporary employees (at T1). Again, permanent and temporary workers did not differ on their reported level of social support. There was no significant difference between the stable groups in emotional exhaustion at T1 and T2. In sum, hypothesis 1 received limited support.

Table 3.

Differences in job characteristics and emotional exhaustion between employment groups at T1 and T2.

		Stable groups			Transitionsperm–temp		Transitionsself-emp–emp		F-value	Eta	Multiple comparisons
		(1) PP	(2) TT	(3) SS	(4) PT	(5) TP	(6) PS	(7) SP
N		4917	70	160	106	115	31	21
Job demands	T1	2.68	2.70	2.63	2.65	2.65	2.65	2.83	.51	.001	-
	T2	2.61	2.53	2.41	2.46	2.50	2.25	2.69	7.73***	.008	1>3,5,6; 7>6
Job control	T1	3.17	3.08	3.65	3.09	3.02	3.42	3.50	15.10***	.016	3>1,2,4,5
	T2	3.07	3.02	3.56	2.86	3.06	3.58	3.41	14.96***	.016	3,6>1,2,4,5
Social support	T1	3.19	3.13	3.37	3.18	3.11	3.17	3.26	4.55***	.005	3>1,2,4,5
	T2	3.18	3.19	3.40	3.15	3.14	3.55	3.14	7.47***	.008	3>1,4,5; 6>1,2,4,5
Emotional	T1	2.37	2.59	2.10	2.39	2.30	2.53	2.24	1.45	.002	-
exhaustion	T2	2.22	2.32	1.87	2.02	2.24	1.86	2.29	2.31*	.003	-

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

Hypothesis 2: Similar changes in stable groups between time points

The effect of time was non-significant at the conventional 5% level (F_{(4, 5407)} = 2.28, p = .058). This means that the idea of a time effect during the crisis that is similar regardless of employment group (as suggested in hypothesis 2) could not be supported. Instead, the results show a significant multivariate interaction effect of time*group (Pillai’s trace = .16, F_{(24, 21412)} = 3.71, p < .000, partial η² = .004). This means that hypothesis 2 (equal changes across groups) was rejected, since the results speak for different changes across employment groups. Inspecting the time*group effects in more detail, the interaction effect was found for emotional exhaustion (F_{(6, 5407)} = 3.22, p < .01, partial η² = .004), job demands (F_{(6, 5407)} = 7.89, p < .000, partial η² = .009), job control (F_{(6, 5407)} = 2.64, p < .05, partial η² = .003) and social support (F_{(6, 5407)} = 3.87, p < .000, partial η² = .004). When the analyses were re-run including only the stable employment groups, these conclusions did not change. All changes are depicted in Table 4.

Table 4.

Mean differences in job characteristics and emotional exhaustion within each employment group over time (based on estimated marginal means).

	Stable groups			Transitions perm–temp		Transitions self-emp–emp
	(1) PP	(2) TT	(3) SS	(4) PT	(5) TP	(6) PS	(7) SP
N	4917	70	160	106	115	31	21
Multivariate F^a	86.31***	3.59**	9.89***	12.21***	4.54**	11.22***	1.02
Job demands
Mean diff 2008–2010	−.07***	−.18***	−.20***	−.19***	−.18***	−.41***	−.14
SE	.007	.055	.036	.045	.043	.082
Effect size	.14	.39	.42	.41	.39	.89
Job control
Mean diff 2008–2010	−.10***	−.06	−.09	−.23***	+.05	+.17	−.10
SE	.009			.061
Effect size	−.16			−.37
Social support
Mean diff 2008–2010	.00	.06	.03	−.03	+.04	+.38***	−.11
SE						.086
Effect size						.79
Emotional exhaustion
Mean diff 2008–2010	−.16***	−.27*	−.22**	−.38***	−.08	−.68***	+.03
SE	.013	.111	.074	.090		.166
Effect size	.18	.28	.23	.41		.73

Multivariate F based on Pillai’s trace.

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

For the stable employment groups, Table 4 shows that job demands reduced in all three groups from T1 to T2, but the decrease was largest in the temporary and self-employed workers. Job control decreased significantly among permanent workers, and social support remained unchanged over time. Emotional exhaustion decreased in all three groups, with stronger effects in the temporary and self-employed group.

Hypothesis 3a vs 3b: Adaptation vs selection mechanisms in those switching groups

For adaption in the switching groups, we would expect within-group changes to take place between T1 and T2. Also, there should be more differences between the switching group and the group they switch to at T1 than T2. For the selection hypothesis, we would expect the opposite pattern of differences and fewer changes or no changes. Inspecting the results for the PT and TP group, that is, those switching between core and periphery, there are no significant differences between these groups and neither the stable permanent or temporary group at T1 or T2 (see Table 3). When looking at within-group changes (see Table 4), both switching groups (PT and TP) report significantly lower job demands at T2. In terms of job control, there is a significant decrease for the PT group, but no increase for the TP at T2. No within-group changes took place in social support. Emotional exhaustion decreased significantly in the PT group, but remained stable in the TP group. Thus, for the switches between core and periphery, no hypothesis received strong support, but there seems to be some indication of adaptation processes.

Exploring switches to and from self-employment, since few transitions existed between temporary and self-employment, only those switching between permanent contracts and self-employment were analysed further. Table 3 shows that those giving up their business and becoming permanent employees (SP) perceive higher job demands at T2 than those switching the other way around (PS). Interestingly, self-employed workers who become permanent employees were the only group in which no significant within-group changes for job characteristics and emotional exhaustion were observed. Former permanent employees who start a business already report higher job control than other employees at T1, and continue to do so at T2, which differentiates them from permanent and temporary workers and those switching between these employment forms. Also, social support increases significantly in the PS group, and at T2 differs from all workers in permanent and temporary employment (see Table 4). Again neither of these groups differed from others in their emotional exhaustion, but the PS group reported significant decreases in emotional exhaustion, whereas the SP group remained stable. Altogether, the group switching to self-employment is more like the stable self-employment group at T2 which supports the adaptation hypothesis (3a) more than the selection hypothesis (3b).

All reported between-group differences and within-group changes are also illustrated in Figure 1 for each of the job characteristics and for emotional exhaustion.

Figure 1.

Changes in job demands, job control, social support and emotional exhaustion between T1 and T2 for different employment groups.

The overview in Figure 1 again demonstrates the few and small differences between the permanent and temporary workers, and also highlights the distinctiveness of the self-employed and those switching between permanent and self-employment, in particular with respect to their reported job characteristics.

Discussion

This article aimed at studying how job characteristics and emotional exhaustion differed between, and changed for, permanent, temporary and self-employed workers and those who switched between these employment forms from 2008 to 2010, that is right before and shortly after the economic crisis hit Sweden.

Looking at the findings, the study contributes to the existing literature with a number of interesting results. Regarding the first hypothesis proposing differences in job characteristics (job demands, job control and social support) and strain (emotional exhaustion) in stable permanent contracts, temporary work and self-employment at both times, no clear differences were found between the core (permanent) and periphery (temporary) workers regarding their job characteristics. This finding that job demands, control and social support were comparable for those in permanent and temporary work contradicts our first hypothesis. However, it may underpin the necessity to further differentiate the layers in the periphery, since there are differences also among temporary workers (Bernhard-Oettel et al., 2005), and the temporary workers studied here were rather highly educated and held their temporary positions over a longer time; they may thus have been more alike to the semi-permanent temporary group studied by Wagenaar et al. (2012a). Also, contrary to earlier evidence for elevated strain in the periphery (Aronsson et al., 2002; Virtanen M et al., 2005), those in stable temporary vs permanent employment did not differ in emotional exhaustion. Thus, our results did not support segmentation theories proposing clear differences between those working in the core and periphery (Atkinson, 1984; Doeringer and Piore, 1971; Kalleberg, 2001). However, both groups differed from the self-employed in terms of perceived job control, which is in line with earlier findings (Stephan and Roesler, 2010) and in line with our proposition that the self-employed would report the most favourable job characteristics. Interestingly also, the amount of social support was significantly higher at both times among the self-employed as compared to permanent and temporary workers. Receiving support in self-employment has been found to be important (Allen, 2000; Kim et al., 2013) but our study is one of the few comparing it to the support received by employees. Regarding the source of social support in self-employment it is conceivable that the self-employed work in networks, or along with their employees, and thus establish very personal ties that result in high social support. Furthermore, social support may be boosted because the self-employed can typically make decisions on recruits or cooperation partners (Van Gelderen, 2016), whereas employees cannot choose their colleagues or bosses. To conclude, if self-employed workers receive social support at work, this resource seems to be stronger than for permanent and temporary employees. An interesting avenue for future research on job characteristics in different groups of the labour market is to further disentangle the sources and kinds of social support that are available to each group.

Next, based on the contradictory evidence of earlier studies, we probed whether job characteristics and strain changed equally (hypothesis 2) during the crisis years. Overall, our result contradicts European reports of increased job control during the crisis (Gallie, 2013), supports earlier findings of declined work intensity (Eurofound, 2013), but most of all emphasizes the importance of differentiating between different employment forms, thus contradicting hypothesis 2. Summarizing the findings in view of the job control–demand–support model (Johnson and Hall, 1988; Karasek and Theorell, 1990), the emerging picture is that the permanent workers report loss of control and only small decreases in job demands, whereas both temporary and self-employed workers show higher decreases in job demands while at the same time keeping their levels of job control and social support. This may explain their relatively larger decline in emotional exhaustion compared to the group of permanent workers. The results also show that subtle differences between core and periphery decrease further between T1 and T2, predominantly because the permanent workers seem to have been affected more unfavourably in the crisis. One possible explanation for the relatively smaller drop in job demands in permanent workers may be that a lot of temporary agency workers were let go in the beginning of the crisis in Sweden, and thus permanent workers rather than the remaining temporary workers may have been given additional tasks, increasing their overall work load (Mishra and Spreitzer, 1998). In sum, job characteristics and strain changed differently for the stable employment groups, but rather than making the periphery group of the temporary workers more vulnerable, changes seem to be most to the disadvantage of the permanent workers. Yet, due to the longitudinal nature of this study, this conclusion is valid for those who remained in the same employment group over time, omitting for example the relatively large amount of temporary workers who lost their job due to the crisis (Statistics Sweden, 2015). Also, this study disentangled temporary workers who remain in temporary work from those who switch employment, and again, as earlier studies (Wagenaar et al., 2012b) show, such long-term temporary workers may be a privileged group that is more alike to the permanent workforce. An important enquiry for future studies would be to better understand whether temporary workers who remain in this employment form over time actually resemble the ‘average temporary worker’ or perhaps are a specific group, e.g. holding long-term temporary contracts or working voluntarily as temporary workers. Both long contract duration and volition may be factors contributing to better job characteristics and well-being (De Cuyper et al., 2008). However, even in this study, temporary employment seems to be the employment that individuals are most likely to move away from. There are only 68 people who are temporarily employed at both time points. This is in line with research suggesting that ‘temporaries rather switch than fight’ (Von Hippel, 2006: 533).

Turning to those who switched type of employment, we examined whether changes in job characteristics and strain supported the idea of adaptation (hypothesis 3a) vs selection (hypothesis 3b). Neither of the groups that switched between permanent and temporary work differed from stable temporary or permanent employees at T1 or T2. This would lead to the conclusion that there is neither selection (a finding congruent to findings of De Cuyper et al., 2009) nor adaptation. However, it needs to be kept in mind that the study did not find any between-group differences between stable permanent and temporary groups either, thus insignificant changes for contract switchers are not surprising. Also, since switches to and from unemployment were not studied here, it cannot be excluded that selection mechanisms do exist for those who leave or enter the labour market, as has been found in a Dutch (Wagenaar et al., 2012c) and a Finnish study (Virtanen P et al., 2005). Apart from the between-group comparisons, some important insights are gained from within-group analyses. As can be seen, both groups (PT and TP) reported decreasing job demands, but since this was the case even in stable employment groups, these changes did not result in any group differences at T2. Here, similar to the study by Parker et al. (2002), the complexity in this type of research becomes apparent: since even stable employment groups changed in their job characteristics due to other circumstances (in this case, the financial crisis), a comparative approach is not always straightforward. However, those moving into temporary employment report declines in job control and levels of emotional exhaustion, whereas these were stable for temporary-to-permanent switchers. This means that a switch from the core reduced job control, which is in line with the core–periphery idea that job quality should decrease (De Cuyper et al., 2009). With decreases in both job control and demands, the PT group switched to a more passive job (Karasek and Theorell, 1990), which also explains the drop in emotional exhaustion. In conclusion, we thus find some hints of adaptive processes in the switching groups. This claim can also be substantiated when looking at the signs of within-group changes which mainly follow the pattern expected in segmentation theory (Kalleberg, 2001). However, the changes are small and remain insignificant. Future studies in this area may also need to scrutinize if such changes in employment contract entail a change of employer or not. One Dutch study found that job characteristics for those changing between temporary and permanent work with the same employer are more similar, but change more when contract changes also entail employer changes (Wagenaar et al., 2012b).

Extending earlier research, this study provides some more insights from the added analysis of switching groups to and from self-employment. First, an interesting observation was that these switches rarely occurred to and from temporary work. Rather, some permanent employees who already tended to have more job control as compared to other employees at T1 seem to have started a business, which is in line with expectations that resources should exist for a successful start-up (Caliendo et al., 2014; Moog and Backes-Gellner, 2009). Those who had moved from permanent work to self-employment by T2 had become most like the group they switched to. With high levels of job control, increased social support, decreased demands (which may witness difficulties for start-ups during a period in which many self-employed workers reported a decline, see Eurofound, 2013) and lower emotional exhaustion, this group displayed a favourable change in terms of the job demand–control–support model (Johnson and Hall, 1988; Karasek and Theorell, 1990). Those going from self-employment to permanent work (SP), on the other hand, were the only group for which job characteristics did not change significantly at all; but inspecting Figure 1 shows that before the switch (at T1) the SP group showed above average levels of job demands and emotional exhaustion, and tended to report lower job control and social support than those who remained self-employed. Taken together, however, all analyses on switching groups support the adaptation hypothesis (3a) slightly more than the selection hypothesis (3b). Nevertheless, reviewing each group’s demographic background reveals selection patterns with respect to age and education: those going from temporary to permanent employment are the youngest and one of the most highly educated groups. Those switching from permanent to temporary work are among the oldest and least educated in the overall sample.

On a theoretical level, this study argued for broadening the core–periphery perspective to also include self-employment, and made use of the DCS model to understand how different contractual arrangements relate to perceived work demands, job control and social support, and in consequence, experienced strain. Future studies are needed to explore whether broadening the core–periphery perspective is a fruitful approach, and here, perhaps also other differences between these groups – for example, with respect to perceptions of employment and economic uncertainties – are worth scrutinizing. Additionally, some job characteristics may be specific for the self-employed (e.g. being responsible for business survival), and thus, theory development is needed to take these unique stressors into consideration (Stephan, 2018).

Limitations and final conclusions

With samples drawn from respondents to the Swedish Work Environment Surveys (SWES), SLOSH is a longitudinal cohort study, which made it possible to follow up temporary workers, who otherwise often disappear when samples are collected in organizations (see De Cuyper et al., 2008). Furthermore, since self-employed workers are included, this study had the rare opportunity not only to follow but also compare organizational employees and self-employed workers, and different patterns of changes between these employment forms. Also, with a sampling strategy from the entire population, individuals from all kinds of sectors in different parts of Sweden are represented in SLOSH. Yet, there are certain restrictions in the data that need to be kept in mind for the interpretation of the findings. First, this article only included individuals in employment at both points in time. These may have had a more secure attachment to the labour market, which, in part, may explain the few differences between permanent and temporary workers. In fact, unemployment rates increased from around 6% (summer 2008) to above 8% a year later (Statistics Sweden, 2017), and the percentage of temporary employment decreased between 2007 and 2009 (Statistics Sweden, 2015). Second, it was impossible to differentiate between different types of temporary contracts, temporary agency vs directly hired temporary workers, or between low and high quality jobs, since this would have increased the number of possible groups dramatically. Also, differentiations according to sector or occupation were hampered by the fact that self-employed workers are merely registered in the sector/occupation ‘self-employment’. Additional analysis on the organizationally employed groups showed no differences in percentage of white vs blue collar workers between groups at T1. At T2, however, significantly more blue collar workers were found in the PT group, switching to temporary work, and this may be indicative of the fact that the industrial sector had been hit the hardest in Sweden during the crisis. Third, even though the data were gathered right before the onset, and in the levelling off of the crisis in Sweden, there is unfortunately no data from spring 2009, which perhaps was the time the economic crisis was most marked. However, all results suggest that there was no noticeable long-lasting effect traceable in 2010. Fourth, in this study the time lag between both measurements was two years. For some tests, as for example in terms of health selection, a longer time frame may be needed for effects to develop. On the other hand, as time expands, it may become difficult to disentangle how the time during the crisis and post-crisis has had an impact. Also, with longer time lags, more changes in and out of certain employment forms are plausible, which implies other challenges to reach valid conclusions.

Despite these shortcomings, there are some important and interesting conclusions that can be drawn from this study. Individuals in permanent or temporary contracts at both time points did not differ in their job characteristics and emotional exhaustion as suggested in the core–periphery theories; rather, both groups differed from the self-employed, who reported most favourably about their job characteristics. Also, during the time of the crisis, the stable employment groups were affected differently: most notable was the decrease in job demands that was largest among temporary workers and the self-employed, and the reduction in perceived job control among the permanent workers. When looking at switches between employment forms, no evidence for any selection mechanisms for moving into or out of permanent employment was found. Within-group changes over time rather give support to the idea that switchers adapt to the group they switch to. This can also be concluded for those switching to and from self-employment: with the exception of job control, adaptation was clearest for those starting a business. Altogether, and contradicting segmentation theories, permanent and temporary work did not differ and perhaps became even more alike during the crisis years in Sweden. The self-employed stand out as having the most favourable job characteristics, although this is at odds with the finding that their emotional exhaustion does not differ from employees. Interestingly, as job demands declined, and social support and job control remained rather stable in many groups, emotional exhaustion reduced for many workers. This may suggest that the economic decline, during which export and GDP dropped in Sweden, also led to a less strenuous work situation for those who kept their employment or business. However, what needs to be kept in mind is that those who lost their employment as an effect of the crisis are not scrutinized in this article. Also, the context may play an important role, since the findings presumably reflect the Swedish circumstances where, in contrast to Southern Europe, the crisis levelled off rather quickly.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

This research was supported by the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare (FORTE grant no. 2004-2021, 2005-0734, 2009-1077, 2012-0979), by the Swedish Research Council (VR, grant no. 2009-6192, 2013-1645), and by FORTE funding for the Stockholm Stress Centre, a centre of excellence.

Notes

ORCID iD

Claudia Bernhard-Oettel

Author biographies

Claudia Bernhard-Oettel is Associate Professor and Senior Lecturer at the Department of Psychology, Stockholm University. Her research interests focus on working conditions across different employment forms, employment uncertainty, facilitators of job transitions and career changes, fairness perceptions, and development of worker well-being and health over time.

Constanze Leineweber is Associate Professor at the Stress Research Institute, Stockholm University. She is data manager of the Swedish Longitudinal Survey of Health (SLOSH) study. In her research she focuses on working conditions and work–life interaction as determinants of health and labour force participation.

Hugo Westerlund is Professor of Epidemiology and Head of the Stress Research Institute, Stockholm University. He is PI of the Swedish Longitudinal Survey of Health (SLOSH) and his research interests focus on work, working conditions and retirement as determinants of health and disease.

References

Allen

(2000) Social networks and self-employment. Journal of Socio-Economics 29: 487–501.

Andersson

(2008) Happiness and health: Well-being among the self-employed. Journal of Socio-Economics 37: 213–236.

Aronsson

Gustafsson

Dallner

(2002) Work environment and health in different types of temporary jobs. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 11(2): 151–175.

Atkinson

(1984) Manpower strategies for flexible organisations. Personnel Management 16(8): 28–31.

Bardasi

Francesconi

(2004) The impact of atypical employment on individual wellbeing: Evidence from a panel of British workers. Social Science and Medicine 58(9): 1671–1688.

Bernhard-Oettel

Sverke

De Witte

(2005) Comparing alternative employment to permanent full time work: How do employment contract and perceived job conditions relate to health complaints? Work and Stress 19(4): 301–318.

Bernhard-Oettel

De Cuyper

Murphy

Connelly

(2017) How do we feel and behave when we’re not permanent full-time employees? The case of the diverse forms of non-standard work. In: Chmiel

Fraccaroli

Sverke

(eds) An Introduction to Work and Organizational Psychology: A European Perspective, 3rd edn. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 258–275.

Bock-Schappelwein

Fuchs

(2010) Arbeitsmarkt, WIFO Monatsberichte 4/2010. In: Scheiblecker

et al . (eds) Wirtschaftsbericht 2009. Wien: Austrian Institute for Economic Research, pp. 361–369.

Caliendo

Fossen

Kritikos

(2014) Personality characteristics and the decisions to become and stay self-employed. Small Business Economics 42(4): 787–814.

10.

De Cuyper

De Jong

De Witte

et al . (2008) Literature review of theory and research on the psychological impact of temporary employment: Towards a conceptual model. International Journal of Management Reviews 10(1): 25–51.

11.

De Cuyper

Notelaers

De Witte

(2009) Transitioning between temporary and permanent employment: A two-wave study on the entrapment, the stepping stone and the selection hypothesis. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 82(1): 67–88.

12.

Doeringer

Piore

(1971) Internal Labour Markets and Manpower Analysis. Lexington, MA: Heath Lexington Books.

13.

Ekonomifakta (2016) Företagandet [Entrepreneurship]. Available at: www.ekonomifakta.se/Fakta/Foretagande/Entreprenorskap/Nystartade-foretag/.

14.

Eurofound (2012) The European industrial relations dictionary. Available at: www.eurofound.europa.eu

15.

Eurofond (2013) Impact of the crisis on working conditions in Europe. Available at: www.eurofound.europa.eu

16.

Gallagher

Sverke

(2005) Contingent employment contracts: Are existing employment theories still relevant? Economic and Industrial Democracy 26(2): 181–203.

17.

Gallie

(2013) Economic Crisis, Quality of Work and Social Integration: The European Experience. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

18.

Guest

Isaksson

De Witte

(2010) Employment Contracts, Psychological Contracts, and Employee Well-Being. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

19.

Hassler

(2010) Sweden in Past, Current and Future Economic Crisis: A Report for the OECD Economics Department. Stockholm: University of Stockholm.

20.

Henley

(2015) The Post Crisis Growth in the Self-Employed: Volunteers or Reluctant Recruits? IZA Discussion Paper No. 9232. Bonn: Institute for the Study of Labour.

21.

Irwin

(2011) Five economy lessons from Sweden. Washington Post, 24 June Available at: www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/five-economic-lessons-from-sweden-the-rock-star-of-therecovery/2011/06/21/AGyuJ3iH_story.html

22.

Isaksson

Peiro

Bernhard-Oettel

et al . (2010) Flexible employment and temporary contracts: The employer’s perspective. In: Guest

Isaksson

De Witte

(eds) Employment Contracts, Psychological Contracts, and Worker Well-Being: An International Study. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 45–64.

23.

Jochem

(2010) Sweden country report. In: Stiftung

Bertelsmann

(ed.) Managing the Crisis: A Comparative Assessment of Economic Governance in 14 Economies. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann Stiftung.

24.

Johansson

Sevä I

Vinberg

Nordenmark

Strandh

(2016) Subjective well-being among the self-employed in Europe: Macroeconomy, gender and immigrant status. Small Business Economics 46: 239–253.

25.

Johnson

Hall

(1988) Job strain, social support, and cardiovascular disease: A cross-sectional study of a random sample of the Swedish working population. American Journal of Public Health 78(10): 1336–1342.

26.

Kalleberg

(2001) Organizing flexibility: The flexible firm in a new century. British Journal of Industrial Relations 39(4): 479–504.

27.

Karasek

Theorell

(1990) Healthy Work. New York: Basic Books.

28.

Kim

Longest

Aldrich

(2013) Can you lend me a hand? Task role alignment of social support for aspiring business owners. Work and Occupations 40(3): 213–249.

29.

Magnusson Hanson

Leineweber

Persson

et al . (2018) Cohort profile: The Swedish Longitudinal Occupational Survey of Health (SLOSH). International Journal of Epidemiology 47(3): 691–692.

30.

Maslach

Schaufeli

Leiter

(2001) Job burnout. Annual Review of Psychology 52: 397–422.

31.

Mishra

Spreitzer

(1998) Explaining how survivors respond to downsizing: The roles of trust, empowerment, justice and work redesign. Academy of Management Review 23(3): 567–588.

32.

Moog

Backes-Gellner

(2009) Social capital and the willingness to become self-employed. International Studies of Management and Organization 39(2): 33–64.

33.

Nordenmark

Vinberg

Strandh

(2012) Job control and demands, work–life balance and wellbeing among self-employed men and women in Europe. Society, Health and Vulnerability 3(1): Article 18896. https://doi.org/10.3402/vgi.v3i0.18896

34.

Obschonka

Silbereisen

(2015) The effects of work-related demands associated with social and economic change on psychological well-being: A study of employed and self-employed individuals. Journal of Personnel Psychology 14(1): 8–16.

35.

OECD (2009) Tackling the Job Crisis: Employment Outlook 2009. Paris: OECD Publishing.

36.

OECD (2018) Temporary employment (indicator). doi: 10.1787/75589b8a-en

37.

Parker

Griffin

Sprigg

Wall

(2002) Effect of temporary contracts on perceived work characteristics and job strain: A longitudinal study. Personnel Psychology 55(3): 689–719.

38.

Prottas

Thompson

(2006) Stress, satisfaction, and the work–family interface: A comparison of self-employed business owners, independents, and organizational employees. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 11(4): 366–378.

39.

Pullich

Volery

Muhr

(2011) Entrepreneurs’ perception of social support and health – does business size matter? (Interactive Paper). Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research 31(10): 1–2.

40.

Rahim

(1996) Stress, strain, and their moderators: An empirical comparison of entrepreneurs and managers. Journal of Small Business Management 34(1): 46–58.

41.

Schnall

Landsbergis

Baker

(1994) Job strain and cardiovascular disease. Annual Review of Public Health 15: 381–411

42.

Statistics Sweden (2015) Utvecklingen av tidsbegränsat anställda [Trends for persons in temporary employment]. AM 110:SM 1501.

43.

Statistics Sweden (2017) Arbetslösheten tog fart under finanskrisen [Unemployment increased during the financial crisis]. 21 March. Available at: www.scb.se/hitta-statistik/sverige-i-siffror/samhallets-ekonomi/arbetslosheten/#819ca7e3-d0fc-493f-ae0d-7c0c3ddd01fd

44.

Stephan

(2018) Entrepreneurs’ mental health and well-being: A review and research agenda. Academy of Management Perspectives 32(3).

45.

Stephan

Roesler

(2010) Health of entrepreneurs versus employees in a national representative sample. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 83(3): 717–738.

46.

Stephan

Uhlaner

(2010) Performance-based vs socially supportive culture: A cross-national study of descriptive norms and entrepreneurship. Journal of International Business Studies 41(8): 1347–1364.

47.

The Economist (2013). The origins of the financial crisis. Crash course. Schools brief. 7 September. Available at: www.economist.com/news/schoolsbrief/21584534-effects-financial-crisis-are-still-being-felt-five-years-article

48.

Toppinen-Tanner

Kalimo

Mutanen

(2002) The process of burnout in white-collar and blue-collar jobs: Eight-year prospective study of exhaustion. Journal of Organizational Behavior 23(5): 555–570.

49.

Van Gelderen

(2016) Entrepreneurial autonomy and its dynamics. Applied Psychology: An International Review 65(3): 541–567.

50.

Virtanen

Kivimäki

Elovainio

et al . (2003) From insecure to secure employment: Changes in work, health, health related behaviours, and sickness absence. Occupational and Environmental Medicine 60(12): 948–953.

51.

Virtanen

Kivimaki

Joensuu

et al . (2005) Temporary employment and health: A review. International Journal of Epidemiology 34(3): 610–622.

52.

Virtanen

Vahtera

Kivimaki

et al . (2002) Employment security and health. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 56(8): 569–574.

53.

Virtanen

Vahtera

Kivimaki

et al . (2005) Labor market trajectories and health: A four-year follow-up study of initially fixed-term employees. American Journal of Epidemiology 161(9): 840–846.

54.

Von Hippel

(2006) When people would rather switch than fight: Out-group favoritism among temporary employees. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations 9(4): 533–546.

55.

Voss

Vitols

Farvaque

et al . (2013) Temporary Agency Work and Transitions in the Labor Market. Final Report for Joint Eurociett/UNI Europa Project. Hamburg: Eurociett/UNI Europa.

56.

Wagenaar

Kompier

MAJ

Houtman

ILD

et al . (2012a) Can labour contract differences in health and work-related attitudes be explained by quality of working life and job insecurity? International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health 85(7): 763–773.

57.

Wagenaar

Kompier

MAJ

Houtman

ILD

et al . (2012b) Impact of employment contract changes on workers’ quality of working life, job insecurity, health and work-related attitudes. Journal of Occupational Health 54(6): 441–451.

58.

Wagenaar

Kompier

MAJ

Houtman

ILD

et al . (2012c) Employment contracts and health selection: Unhealthy employees out and healthy employees in? Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine 54(10): 1192–1200.