The promise of flexicurity: Can employment and income security mitigate the negative effects of job insecurity?

Abstract

Flexicurity is an integral part of the EU Employment Strategy. Flexicurity promises that it is possible to simultaneously provide organisations with greater flexibility and offer workers the necessary level of security. This is achieved by replacing job security, which stems from a permanent employment contract, with employment and income security. The aim of this article is to present an individual-level investigation of the relationships between various elements of flexicurity, examining how they affect psychological well-being and job satisfaction. A heterogeneous sample of 432 adults employed under various types of employment arrangements participated in the study. The results showed that the type of employment arrangement was the main predictor of perceived job insecurity. Moreover, perceived job insecurity mediated the relationship between employment arrangement and psychological outcomes. Finally, employment and income security failed to mitigate the negative effect of job insecurity. The promise of flexicurity is therefore called into question.

Keywords

Flexicurity job insecurity job satisfaction psychological well-being temporary employment

Introduction

In the European Union, the share of employees with a permanent contract is steadily decreasing, while the share of temporary employees is increasing. In some European countries (e.g. Spain, Poland and Portugal), one-fifth to one-quarter of workers are employed on a temporary basis (Eurostat, 2019). Given the significant and ever-growing proportion of non-permanent contracts among the economically active population, it is crucial to understand how employees are affected by such employment arrangements. Furthermore, it is important to evaluate whether labour market policies can successfully mitigate the potentially negative effects of non-permanent employment arrangements on individual and organisational outcomes.

Job insecurity (the risk of losing one’s employment with a current employer) is considered to be the defining feature of non-permanent employment. Moreover, perceived job insecurity among non-permanent employees is thought to be the cause of negative psychological and behavioural outcomes among temporary workers (Bernhard-Oettel et al., 2013; De Witte and Näswall, 2003; Wagenaar et al., 2012). Therefore, organisations and policy-makers need to know how to effectively balance organisational demands for increased (numerical) flexibility and employees’ needs for (job) security.

In the European Union, flexicurity is a part of the Employment Strategy. Flexicurity promises that it is possible to simultaneously provide organisations with greater flexibility and offer workers the necessary level of security (see European Commission, 2013; ICF GHK, 2012; Wilthagen and Tros, 2004). To achieve greater flexibility in the labour markets, flexicurity policies seek to replace job security – which stems from permanent employment contracts and employment protection legislation – with strong employment security (employability) and income security in times of job transition.

Not surprisingly, the concept of flexicurity has drawn the attention of sociologists, economists, political and other social scientists, as well as trade unions (e.g. Burroni and Keune, 2011; Ignjatović, 2012; Jepsen and Pascual, 2005; Keune and Jepsen, 2007; López et al., 2014; Origo and Pagani, 2009; Svalund et al., 2013; Van Oorschot and Cheung, 2015). Even though flexicurity has been extensively criticised for its inability to balance labour market flexibility with adequate security for workers (Hastings and Heyes, 2018; Heyes, 2013; López et al., 2014; Mailand, 2010; Murphy, 2017), the underlying idea of combining flexibility with security has persisted, with different elements of flexicurity frequently addressed in EU policy documents (Bekker, 2018; Bekker and Mailand, 2019).

To date, the authors have relied heavily on available macroeconomic flexicurity indicators (see European Commission, 2007) and focused on institutions, regulations and country-level comparisons. However, research using individual-level data is needed to examine the differences between people with different levels of flexibility and security and to investigate the effects of such differences on short-term and long-term personal and organisational outcomes. There has been a lack of empirical evidence using individual-level indicators of flexicurity. Berglund and colleagues (Berglund, 2015; Berglund et al., 2014) conducted early research testing the flexicurity framework using individual-level indicators. The authors explored the effects of job security, employment security and income security on fear of losing one’s job and on well-being. However, the question remains as to whether one can achieve the promise of flexicurity by simply replacing job insecurity with employment and income security and thus avoiding negative individual and organisational outcomes.

The aim of this article is to present an individual-level investigation of the relationships between various elements of flexicurity, examining how they affect psychological well-being and job satisfaction. We seek to overcome the limitations of previous studies that operated with individual-level indicators by including all four core elements of flexicurity – external numerical flexibility (different types of employment arrangements), job security, employment security and income security. In addition, we move beyond the relationships between flexicurity variables to explore their impact on employee assessments of work and life.

To explain the relationships, we draw from equity theory (Adams, 1963), appraisal theory (Lazarus, 1991; Scherer, 2001; Smith and Kirby, 2009) and work stress theory (Cavanaugh et al., 2000). Considering the significant differences between temporary and contract workers found in previous research (Bernhard-Oettel et al., 2005; Klandermans et al., 2010; Van Vuuren et al., 2019; Wilkin, 2013), we differentiate between various types of non-permanent employment arrangements. We cover a variety of industries, occupations and educational levels in our sample in order to achieve greater generalisability of the results.

Flexicurity framework

Flexicurity aims to fulfil the demand for greater flexibility in labour markets, employment and organisations, while simultaneously providing employees with an adequate level of security, especially workers at the periphery of the labour market (Wilthagen and Tross, 2004). Wilthagen and Rogowski (2002: 250) defined flexicurity as:

A policy strategy that attempts, synchronically and in a deliberate way, to enhance the flexibility of labour markets, work organisation and labour relations on the one hand, and to enhance security – employment security and social security – notably for weaker groups in and outside the labour market, on the other hand.

In the pursuit of a (new) balance between flexibility and security, flexicurity policies seek to replace job security with employment and income security, taking into account the necessary trade-off between external numerical flexibility (the flexibility of hiring and firing), which is considered key to labour market flexibility, and job security.

Job security is defined as staying in the same job with the same employer for a relatively long time. This type of security is assured through permanent employment contracts and employment protection legislation. By contrast, employment security refers to an individual’s employability or ability to remain in work (but not necessarily with the same employer). Finally, income security is understood as income protection in the event of job loss (Muffels and Wilthagen, 2013; Wilthagen et al., 2007). On the individual level, job insecurity is defined as the risk of losing employment with one’s current employer (in the next 6 or 12 months), employment security is the possibility of finding an equal or better job (in the next 3 or 6 months) and income security is having adequate financial assurance in the case of unemployment (e.g. Berglund, 2015; Chadi and Hetschko, 2016; De Cuyper et al., 2009; Tangian, 2007a, 2007b).

Figure 1 illustrates the relationships between key flexicurity variables. In order to achieve external numerical flexibility, companies use non-permanent work arrangements (e.g. temporary employment and contract work), which results in reduced job security for workers. However, the trade-off between external numerical flexibility and job security can be overcome by adequate levels of employment and income security, resulting in the best outcomes for individuals and organisations.

Figure 1.

The relationships between employment arrangements (external numerical flexibility), job (in)security, employment and income security, and personal and organisational outcomes according to the flexicurity framework.

Employment arrangements, job insecurity and inequity

One of the basic assumptions in organisational research is that job insecurity is inherent in non-permanent employment arrangements (e.g. fixed-term work and contract work). Indeed, many researchers (e.g. Callea et al., 2016; De Cuyper et al., 2008a; Klandermans et al., 2010) have found a clear relationship between job insecurity and type of employment contract (Berglund, 2015; De Cuyper and De Witte, 2006; De Cuyper et al., 2009; Green et al., 2010; Kauhanen and Nätti, 2015; Wagenaar et al., 2012), suggesting that the type of employment contract might be the most important predictor of perceived job insecurity (Berglund, 2015; De Cuyper and De Witte, 2006; Keim et al., 2014) or even the objective measures of job insecurity (De Witte and Näswall, 2003; Gevaert et al., 2020; Klandermans et al., 2010; Sora et al., 2019).

Even though job insecurity is a subjective experience which is by and large shaped by employment arrangement, type of employment contract and perceived job insecurity should not be equated by default. The reason is that objective circumstances do not necessarily determine an individual’s subjective perceptions. Research (Origo and Pagani, 2009) has shown that not all permanent workers perceive their jobs as secure and not all temporary workers as insecure, although permanent employees do report perceiving their jobs as secure significantly more often than temporary workers. Moreover, being subjected to job insecurity does not necessarily translate into concern over job loss (Klandermans et al., 2010).

We explain the differences in employees’ perceptions and reactions to job insecurity using appraisal and stress theories (Lazarus, 1991; Scherer, 2001; Smith and Kirby, 2009). Appraisals (psychological interpretations of experience) are determined in part by individuals’ internal characteristics (e.g. personality traits and prior experience) and in part by external circumstances (e.g. the actual situation and socio-cultural environment). Certain situations, such as being temporarily employed, might lend themselves to specific primary and secondary appraisals (Britt and Jex, 2015). Employees evaluate the probability of job loss (job insecurity), the severity of the job loss (primary appraisal) and their opportunities to successfully transition to permanent employment or gain new employment (secondary appraisal).

Strain experienced because of objective job insecurity, therefore, depends on the individual’s interpretation of the personal, organisational and environmental factors that determine the consequences of job loss and the alternatives to it. Accordingly, previous research has demonstrated that temporary employees perceive higher job insecurity than permanent workers (Gallie et al., 2017); however, they react less strongly to such job insecurity (De Cuyper and De Witte, 2005; Klandermans et al., 2010), possibly because non-permanent employment is usually characterised by lower job quality and lower wages, suggesting they have less to lose (Holman, 2013; Van Vuuren et al., 2019). That being said, it is not only the type of contract that shapes the severity of job insecurity, but also individuals’ personal resources (De Cuyper et al., 2019) and national institutions (Håkansson et al., 2020), which may provide a safety net and opportunities for successfully coping with the consequences of job insecurity.

Non-permanent employment arrangements are not only stressful because of the inherent uncertainty about the future of one’s job (Sverke and Hellgren, 2002); they may also be perceived as unfair. Permanent employment is the norm in the labour market, representing more than 85% of all employment in Europe. In fact, permanent employment and its associated job security is not only desired by the majority of the active population (De Cuyper and De Witte, 2008; Ortiz, 2010), but also seen as a human right (Chiesa et al., 2018).

Compared to permanent employment, different types of non-permanent employment are often of lower quality (Aleksynska, 2018; Bartoll and Ramos, 2019; Lewandowski et al., 2017), failing to provide the expected levels of job security (De Cuyper and De Witte, 2007). According to equity theory (Adams, 1963), workers compare the adequacy of (financial and non-financial) outcomes they receive at work to those received by other workers (inside and outside the organisation) whose input is similar to theirs. The perceived inequity in valued and expected outcomes at work, especially in terms of job security (Dawson et al., 2017), can lead to negative work attitudes and behaviours (D’Ambrosio et al., 2018) directed towards restoring equity, unless the individual believes that the inequity is of a transitory nature (De Jong and Schalk, 2010).

This suggests that employment contracts by and large shape employees’ perceptions of job insecurity (Gallie et al., 2017). Such job insecurity, which is inherent to temporary employment, is not only stressful (De Cuyper et al., 2010b), but also violates the expectations of job security that workers hold (Bernhard-Oettel et al., 2011).

Employment arrangement and outcomes: Mediation by job insecurity

As suggested, flexible employment arrangements imply discontinuity in employment and result in perceived job insecurity. Flexicurity advocates recognise that job insecurity leads to unfavourable outcomes, unless mitigated by other types of security in the labour market (see Figure 1).

Job insecurity is considered to be one of the strongest stressors (Holmes and Rahe, 1967; Leka and Jain, 2010; Scully et al., 2000) and one of the biggest contributors to job dissatisfaction (Society for Human Resource Management, 2015). Two meta-analyses (Cheng and Chan, 2008; Sverke et al., 2002), a literature review of longitudinal evidence (De Witte et al., 2016) and several more recent studies have concluded that job insecurity is negatively related to job satisfaction (Cheng and Chan, 2008; Richter et al., 2014; Sverke et al., 2002; Yeves et al., 2019), job performance (Van Vuuren et al., 2019), physical and mental health (Bernhard-Oettel et al., 2013; Cheng and Chan, 2008; De Witte et al., 2016; Kim et al., 2020; Richter et al., 2014; Sverke et al., 2002), psychological well-being and life satisfaction (Berglund, 2015; De Witte et al., 2016; Silla et al., 2009).

Appraisal and stress theories help us to understand the effects of job insecurity on well-being through the negative effect of strain associated with the uncertainty over job continuity and future access to resources. These theories also suggest that job insecurity may have far-reaching effects that spill over into everyday life, affecting an individual’s health and well-being (Edwards and Rothbard, 2000). Similar to appraisal and stress theories, equity theories also suggest that job insecurity has negative personal and organisational outcomes; however, these outcomes are explained through perceived unfairness, which results in negative job attitudes and decreased effort (D’Ambrosio et al., 2018).

Research has shown that job insecurity accounts for the differences between various types of employment contracts in general and job-specific outcomes (Wagenaar et al., 2012). Moreover, job insecurity has a greater effect on workers’ well-being than contract type (Sora et al., 2019), indicating that feelings of insecurity determine outcomes and not contract type per se (Virtanen et al., 2011). Some researchers have even found that, after controlling for job insecurity, the differences in outcomes among various employment arrangements disappear (Carleton and Kelly, 2019) or even shift in favour of temporary workers (Dawson et al., 2017). Based on this discussion, we propose the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1a: Job insecurity mediates the relationship between type of employment arrangement and psychological well-being.

Hypothesis 1b: Job insecurity mediates the relationship between type of employment arrangement and job satisfaction.

The moderating role of employment and income security

Given the importance of job security on personal and organisational outcomes, research needs to investigate the moderators of the relationship between perceived job insecurity and the outcomes beyond employment contract type. According to the flexicurity model (see Figure 1), individual differences in employment security and income security can explain differences in outcomes for those employed in insecure jobs. Specifically, the key promise of the flexicurity model is that job insecurity can be buffered by employment and income security.

Employment security represents an individual’s employability. In psychology, employability is often understood as an individual asset that promotes job-related and general well-being (De Cuyper et al., 2008a, 2012; De Witte et al., 2012; Silla et al., 2009; Vanhercke et al., 2016). This may be especially important for those employed in insecure jobs (Berntson, 2008; De Cuyper et al., 2009, 2010a). Indeed, research has often considered employability to be a substitute for job security.

Research has found that employment security is positively related to psychological well-being (Berglund, 2015; Berntson and Marklund, 2007; Kinnunen et al., 2011; Vanhercke et al., 2015), life satisfaction (De Cuyper et al., 2008a, 2011) and general health (Berntson and Marklund, 2007; De Cuyper et al., 2010a), and negatively related to anxiety over losing one’s job (Berglund et al., 2014). There is also evidence that employment security moderates the relationships between job insecurity and life satisfaction, and between job insecurity and general health (Green, 2011; Otterbach and Sousa-Poza, 2016; Silla et al., 2009). However, the moderation effects found in these studies have been rather small.

In addition, employment security relates positively to work engagement (De Cuyper et al., 2008b; Peeters et al., 2016), performance (De Cuyper et al., 2011; Kinnunen et al., 2011) and job satisfaction (Yeves et al., 2019). Employment security has been shown to partially moderate the effect of job insecurity on extrinsic job satisfaction (Yeves et al., 2019), indicating that employability might be helpful for obtaining more resources at work, but not for increasing fulfilment from work. There may be pitfalls to high employment security when it comes to organisational commitment (De Cuyper et al., 2009; Ng and Feldman, 2008) and turnover intentions (De Cuyper et al., 2011; Nelissen et al., 2017; Van der Vaart et al., 2015). Findings suggest that employable individuals might be more likely to leave an organisation if better opportunities arise elsewhere.

On the individual level, income security translates into financial security (for a definition, see Howell et al., 2013: 19). Psychological research on financial security and financial stress, especially in relation to job flexibility and security, has been scarce. The few studies that have been conducted show a positive relationship between job insecurity and financial insecurity (Berglund, 2015; Choi et al., 2020). Financial security is positively related to life satisfaction (Howell et al., 2013), but only in the case of casual workers (Green and Leeves, 2013). Temporary employees might also demonstrate lower levels of absenteeism in the case of financial insecurity compared to permanent employees (Klandermans et al., 2010). Therefore, as with the relationship between employment security and organisational outcomes, there is a complex relationship between financial security and organisational outcomes.

Although financial security is negatively related to worries about job loss, it does not moderate the relationship between perceived job insecurity and job-related anxiety (Berglund, 2015). Furthermore, even though financial security is negatively related to financial strain (Choi et al., 2020), it does not buffer the negative effects of job insecurity on mental health (Rajani et al., 2016) or psychological well-being (Richter et al., 2014). Therefore, financial security does not seem to alleviate the negative impact of job insecurity on personal outcomes, as proposed by the flexicurity model. Nevertheless, there has been little psychological research on financial security and its causes and consequences, including its role in predicting employee well-being and organisational behaviours.

Drawing from equity theory (Adams, 1963) and empirical evidence, we suggest that although perceived employment security and financial security may alleviate the stress of job insecurity, they will not be able to buffer the negative effects of perceived job insecurity on attitudes towards one’s employment. This is because employees in insecure jobs perceive inequity compared to co-workers and peers in similar but secure jobs. This perceived inequity is independent of employment and income security, and depends solely on the ratio of outcomes (benefits) and contributions within the employment relation. Employees in insecure jobs are aware that they do not enjoy all the benefits related to job security, which will likely result in job dissatisfaction. However, in line with appraisal theories (Lazarus, 1991; Smith and Kirby, 2009), we propose that if employees perceive themselves as more secure in their employment and income, the perceived threat of losing their current employment will be lower. Consequently, they will experience less stress and therefore enjoy better health and greater well-being. In line with this argument, we propose the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 2a: The negative effect of job insecurity on well-being depends on the level of employment and income security. Specifically, the negative relationship between job insecurity and psychological well-being is significantly weaker (or non-existent) for secure individuals.

Hypothesis 2b: Job insecurity has a negative effect on job satisfaction regardless of the level of employment and income security.

Method

Sample and procedure

We invited 38 medium to large firms from eight different industries to participate in the study. The firms were chosen randomly from the national Slovenian business database (sl., Poslovni informator Republike Slovenije), after being filtered based on size and sector (primary sector was excluded). We sent an invitation letter to the companies, stating the purpose and objectives of the research, along with the procedures, importance of participation, organisational requirements, information on anonymity and contact information. To compensate them for their participation, we promised companies an aggregated report for their organisation, as well as an e-lecture on coping with stress in the workplace.

Ten firms from seven different industries agreed to participate in the study. With the support of each firm’s HR department, we distributed questionnaires to employees in electronic or paper format. Employees were made familiar with the voluntary nature of their participation in the study, the research purpose and method, and the anonymity of their participation. Four days after the questionnaire was first distributed, (potential) participants were sent a reminder and thank you note.

Data were collected between October 2016 and February 2017. Initially, 361 people participated: 254 (70.4%) women and 107 (29.6%) men aged between 22 and 64 years (M = 29.5; SD = 9.4). Of these, 311 (86.1%) people were employed permanently, 31 (8.6%) fixed-term and 19 (5.3%) in other types of employment relationships. Since the goal of the study was to explore the differences between individuals in different types of employment relationships, a second round of participant recruitment was performed. We contacted two non-governmental organisations that deal with the labour market and asked whether we could distribute the electronic questionnaire among individuals employed on a fixed-term or contract basis. For this second round, 71 people participated: 41 (57.7%) women and 30 (42.3%) men aged between 18 and 57 years (M = 30.1; SD = 8.4). Five (7.0%) were employed permanently, 14 (19.7%) fixed-term and 52 (73.3%) in other types of employment relationships.

Table 1 provides a summary of the final sample’s demographic characteristics. In total, 432 people participated in the research, of which 295 were female. The mean age was 38.0 years, ranging from 18 to 64 years. Approximately half of the respondents had completed primary or secondary education, while the other half had completed tertiary education. Twenty-nine people were employed in manual occupations (e.g. manufacturing), 135 in service occupations (e.g. retail) and 268 in professional and technical occupations (e.g. administration and management). The majority of respondents (354 people) were employed in the tertiary sector. In terms of type of contract, 316 (73.1%) held a permanent employment contract, 45 (10.4%) were in fixed-term employment, 42 (9.7%) were contract workers, 25 (5.8%) were dependent self-employed and four (0.9%) were agency workers.

Table 1.

Demographic characteristics of the sample.

	Total(N = 432)	Permanent employees(n = 316)	Fixed-term employees(n = 45)	Contract workers(n = 42)	Dep. self- employed(n = 25)	Differences (χ²/G/F)
Gender (%)
Male	31.7	31.3	22.2	33.3	52.0	χ² (3, N = 428) = 6.69, p = 0.08
Female	68.3	68.7	77.8	66.7	48.0
Education (%)
No academic degree	49.8	52.5	37.8	54.8	28.0	χ² (3, N = 428) = 8.71,p = 0.03
Academic degree	50.2	47.5	62.2	45.2	72.0
Occupational position (%)
Blue-collar	6.7	4.1	11.1	21.4	4.0	χ² (6, N = 426) = 23.00,p < 0.01
Pink-collar	31.3	32.9	24.4	33.3	20.0
White-collar	62.0	63.0	64.4	45.2	76.0
Working hours (%)
Part-time	10.7	1.9	6.7	31.0	28.0	χ² (3, N = 406) = 175.77, p < 0.01
Full-time	89.4	98.1	93.3	69.1	72.0
Sector (%)
Secondary	2.3	0.6	2.2	9.5	8.0	χ² (6, N = 427) = 64.80,p < 0.01
Tertiary	81.9	90.2	68.9	52.4	52.0
Quaternary	15.7	9.2	28.9	38.1	40.0
Age (M)	37.96	40.86	30.11	26.88	35.24	F(3, 424) = 49.87,p < 0.01
(SD)	(9.85)	(8.77)	(6.81)	(7.77)	(8.56)

Note that fewer than 1% of the respondents were agency workers and therefore were excluded from hypothesis testing. In addition, contract workers and dependent self-employed respondents were merged into one group (contract work), since they did not differ in terms of perceived job insecurity or psychological outcomes (MANOVA, Wilks λ = 0.926, F(5, 61) = 0.84, p = 0.280, partial η² = 0.064). Moreover, these two groups of workers have several other similarities: they are not employed in the organisation they work for, they do not receive benefits from employment (e.g. paid leave, remuneration for overtime work, or payment of travel expenses) and they are hired only according to organisational needs. We also tested for any differences among fixed-term employees with different durations of employment contracts (categories were as follows: less than one year, one to two years, two to three years, three to five years and more than five years) and found no differences between them (MANOVA, Pillai tr = 0.299, F(15, 126) = 0.93, p = 0.533, partial η² = 0.100). Therefore, we merged these employees into a single group of fixed-term workers.

Table 2 contains descriptive statistics on the security variables for each type of employment arrangement. Employees in different types of employment differ significantly in perceived job security (ANOVA, F(3, 424) = 23.440, p < 0.001) and employment security (ANOVA, F(3, 424) = 4.164, p = 0.006) but not in income security (ANOVA, F(3, 424) = 1.822, p = 0.142).

Table 2.

Differences between employees in different types of employment arrangements in reported job, employment and income security (mean and standard deviation).

	Total(N = 432)	Permanent employees(n = 316)	Fixed-term employees(n = 45)	Contract workers(n = 42)	Dep. self-employed(n = 25)	One-way ANOVA
Job insecurity	2.27(1.06)	2.04(0.91)	2.80(1.14)	2.88(1.19)	3.24(1.13)	F(3, 424) = 23.440,p < 0.001
Employmentsecurity	2.77(1.07)	2.84(1.06)	2.76(0.98)	2.55(1.21)	2.12(0.88)	F(3, 424) = 4.164,p = 0.006
Incomesecurity	2.15(1.12)	2.18(1.11)	2.13(1.04)	2.14(1.32)	1.64(0.91)	F(3, 424) = 1.822,p = 0.142

Contextual considerations

Slovenia joined the EU in 2004. While Slovenian policy-makers acknowledged the idea of flexicurity in 2005 (in the Slovenian Development Strategy), it gained a more prominent place in Slovenian economic policy in 2010 (with the Slovenian Exit Strategy). Flexicurity was seen as a remedy for the high share of long-term and youth unemployment, the inactivity of older people and the increasing dualisation of the labour market (for an overview see Ignjatović and Hrast, 2018). In Slovenia, job protection has been steadily decreasing and is currently at 1.50 (OECD average is 1.69). The share of temporary workers increased over the two decades up to 2015 (peaking at 18.0%), when the trend reversed. In 2017, 16.5% of the active population in Slovenia held non-permanent positions (OECD average was 11.6%). However, non-permanent employment remained the default contractual arrangement for young people, with 64.5% holding non-permanent employment (OECD average was 27.0%). Fixed-term employment is by far the most common form of temporary employment in Slovenia. Other forms include jobs mediated by temporary work agencies and different forms of contract work, including student work. A special case is individuals who are dependent self-employed workers. These workers are caught in the grey zone between employment and self-employment. This form of self-employment has been steadily growing, reaching 12.7% of Slovenian self-employed workers in 2016 (SURS, 2018). Importantly, the persistent growth of temporary work from 1992 to 2015 did not result in the normalisation of flexibility. Instead, it reflects the lack of permanent, newly created jobs, which forces young people to accept temporary employment against their liking (Kanjuo Mrčela and Ignjatović, 2015). Furthermore, one-fifth of all self-employed workers in Slovenia have expressed a preference for regular employment (SURS, 2018). This clearly indicates that permanent employment remains the preferred form of employment for a large majority of the Slovenian working population and reflects the high value Slovenians place on job security (Kaasa, 2011).

Measures

Flexibility

We asked participants to select their current (main) employment type from among permanent employment, fixed-term employment, contract work, agency work and dependent self-employment. Permanent employees worked on a contract without a fixed termination date. Fixed-term employees worked on a contract of a limited duration, with a predetermined termination date. Contract workers were not employed or self-employed, but had a contract for a specific task or worked within an organisation without a guaranteed number of hours of work. Dependent self-employed were self-employed persons without employees who earned at least 80% of their annual income working for a single organisation. Type of employment was used as an indicator of external numerical flexibility. Permanent employment was used as a reference (external numerical inflexibility) when conducting statistical analyses.

Security

We asked respondents to evaluate each type of security on a 5-point scale (1 – not at all likely/good, 5 – very likely/good). Job insecurity was measured using one item: ‘How likely is it that you will lose your job in the coming 12 months?’; employment security was measured using one item: ‘How would you assess your possibilities of getting a new job if you lost your current job?’; and income security was measured using one item: ‘How would you assess your risk of income insecurity, poverty or material hardship if you lost your current job?’ The final item was reverse scored when used in the analyses.

Psychological well-being

We measured psychological well-being using the Flourishing Scale (Diener et al., 2010). The scale consists of eight items measuring social-psychological prosperity (e.g. ‘My social relationships are supportive and rewarding’, ‘I am a good person and live a good life’). Respondents indicated their agreement with each of the eight statements on a 7-point scale (1 – strongly disagree, 7 – strongly agree). Their average score represents a measure of psychological well-being. The authors of the scale (Diener et al., 2010) did not report the characteristics of the distribution (M = 5.69; SD = 0.78), but in our sample, scores deviated significantly from normal distribution (M = 5.88; SD = 0.77; Skew. = –1.55; Kurt. = 4.22). Therefore, data were transformed using a two-step transformation (Templeton, 2011), which is based on percentile ranks (Skew. = –0.07; Kurt. = –0.31). The internal consistency reported by Diener et al. (2010) was α = 0.87, which is similar to the internal reliability found in our sample (α = 0.89). A scree plot, drawn as a part of the confirmatory analysis, showed the appropriateness of a one-factor structure (58.0% of variance was explained by the first factor; λ = 4.64). Similarly, the fit indices confirmed the marginally satisfactory fit of one general well-being factor (NFI = 0.92, TLI = 0.91, CFI = 0.93, RMSEA = 0.11).

Job satisfaction

Job satisfaction was measured using the Job Satisfaction Scale developed by Pogačnik (1997). The scale consists of 15 items, each measuring a different job satisfaction facet (e.g. working conditions, advancement opportunities, information, communication). Participants responded by reporting their satisfaction on a 5-point scale (1 – very unsatisfied, 5 – very satisfied). Job satisfaction is the average of the 15 scores. Pogačnik (2000) reported internal consistency of α = 0.89 (M = 2.95; SD = 0.70) and a slight negative skewness. As expected, in the presented sample, we found internal reliability of α = 0.89 (M = 3.48; SD = 0.85) and a slight negative skewness (Skew. = –0.77; Kurt. = –1.15). A scree plot drawn as part of the confirmatory analysis showed the appropriateness of a one-factor structure (40.2% of the variance was explained by the first factor; λ = 6.02), while fit indices for a one-factor structure were below the required threshold (NFI = 0.80, TLI = 0.80, CFI = 0.83, RMSEA = 0.11).

Table 3 summarises the descriptive statistics for each predictor variable and the two outcome variables, including correlations between the variables.

Table 3.

Means, standard deviations and correlations between model variables.

		M	SD	1	2	3	4	5
1	Job insecurity	2.28	1.06	/
2	Employment security	2.76	1.07	–.11*	/
3	Income security	2.14	1.12	–.10*	.32**	/
4	Job satisfaction	3.48	0.60	–.37**	.20**	.10*	/
5	Psychologicalwell-being	5.89	0.80	–.32**	.31**	.12*	.46**	/
6	Psychological well-being (transformed)	5.89	0.78	–.31**	.31**	.12**	.44**	.95**

* p < 0.05 (two-tailed), ** p < 0.01 (two-tailed).

Control variables

We included gender, age, educational level, sector and working hours as control variables in the analyses. These variables were chosen based on previous research indicating their impact on perceived job security (Cheng and Chan, 2008; De Witte, 2005; Keim et al., 2014). The classifications of educational and occupational levels were based on Slovenian standard classifications KLASIUS and SKP, while industry classifications were based on the standard classification SKD. For the purposes of the analyses, participants were grouped based on their educational level: the first group consisted of participants who had completed elementary or secondary education, and the second consisted of participants who had completed tertiary education. Moreover, considering weekly working hours, participants were divided into part-time and full-time employees. Organisations were grouped into two groups based on sector as well: secondary sector (processing activities) and tertiary/quaternary sector (service activities, culture, education, research and healthcare).

Statistical analyses

Missing values and outliers

Missing values analysis showed that there were missing values on the psychological well-being scale, since 14 respondents (3.2%) exited the survey before completing the scale. These respondents were excluded from the analysis of the effects on psychological well-being. Furthermore, the analysis of missing data revealed that 15 (3.5%) respondents did not report their age, 22 (5.1%) respondents did not report their weekly working hours and one (0.2%) respondent did not report the sector of his/her organisation. Little’s MCAR test of the variables included in the hypothesis testing showed that data were missing completely at random (χ² = 55.41, df = 58, p = 0.497). Respondents with missing values were excluded from the assumption and hypothesis testing. To detect univariate outliers, we also applied the so-called outlier labelling rule, using 1st and 3rd quartile and g = 1.50 to determine the lower and upper bounds, as proposed by Banerjee and Iglewicz (2007). After the psychological well-being scale was transformed to correct for its skewness and non-normality, no outliers were detected.

Assumption testing

We tested the main assumptions of the regression analysis prior to conducting the hypothesis testing. Sample size adequacy was checked using Green’s (1991) guidelines. We used a residual plot and P-P plot of standardised regression residuals to graphically test for multivariate normality, linearity, homoscedasticity and multicollinearity. We statistically tested for homoscedasticity using the Koenker–Bassett test (Koenker and Bassett, 1982) and for multicollinearity using tolerance values. After we performed a two-step transformation of the well-being variable, all variables met the assumptions of the linear regression.

Hypothesis testing

To test the hypothesised relationships, we performed mediation analysis (Process Model 4), moderated moderation analysis (Process Model 3) and conditional process analysis with a moderated moderator (Process Model 18), as described by Hayes (2013). The idea behind conditional process analysis is to test simultaneously for mediation and moderation. Employment contract represented the independent variable (X), job insecurity was the mediator (M), psychological well-being and job satisfaction were the two outcome variables (Y) and employment security (W) and income security (Z) were moderators of the relationship between job insecurity and the outcomes. In these analyses gender, age, educational level, sector and working hours were included as covariates. The mediation, moderation and conditional process outputs included 95% confidence intervals. In the case of significant (p < 0.05, two-tailed t-test) or marginally significant (p < 0.10, two-tailed t-test) moderation effects, we drew graphs to illustrate the relationships between the variables of interest.

Results

Psychological well-being

First, we investigated whether job insecurity mediated the relationship between employment contract and psychological well-being (Hypothesis 1a). The results of the mediation analysis (N = 380; Model 1: R² = 0.17, F(7, 372) = 10.47, p < 0.001; Model 2: R² = 0.21, F(8, 371) = 12.34, p < 0.001; Model 3: R² = 0.17, F(7, 372) = 10.70, p < 0.001) showed that, compared to permanent employment, fixed-term employment (b = – 0.25, p = 0.057, two-tailed) and contractual work resulted in lower psychological well-being (b = – 0.39, p = 0.004, two-tailed). This total effect was more pronounced in contractual work arrangements than in fixed-term work arrangements, where it was only marginally significant. Moreover, compared to permanent employment, fixed-term employment had a positive and significant direct effect on perceived job insecurity (b = 0.71, p < 0.001, two-tailed). Contract work had an even stronger positive and significant direct effect on perceived job insecurity compared to permanent employment (b = 1.10, p < 0.001, two-tailed). The results of the analysis showed that job insecurity had a negative and significant direct effect on psychological well-being (b = –0.17, p < 0.001, two-tailed). In this model, job insecurity was a full mediator of the relationship between fixed-term employment and psychological well-being, and contract work and psychological well-being.

We proceeded with the analysis of moderated moderation, investigating whether employment and income security moderated the path from job insecurity to psychological well-being (Hypothesis 2a). The results of the moderated moderation analysis (N = 380; R² = 0.30, F(12, 367) = 12.86, p < 0.001) confirmed that the simple effect of job insecurity on psychological well-being was negative and significant (b = –0.40, p = 0.013, two-tailed). However, the simple effects of employment and income security on psychological well-being were not significant (b = –0.01, p = 0.990 and b = –0.20, p = 0.302, respectively). The interaction effect between job insecurity and employment security on psychological well-being was marginally significant (b = 0.09, p = 0.098, two-tailed), indicating that employment security might buffer the negative effect of job insecurity on psychological well-being to some extent. Other interaction terms were not significant.

Finally, we modelled mediation and moderated moderation in a conditional process model, which is shown in Table 4. Model 1 estimated the direct effect of employment contract on job insecurity and showed that both fixed-term employment and contract work were positive and significant predictors of job insecurity (b = 0.71, p < 0.001 and b = 1.10, p < 0.001, respectively). Model 2 considered both employment contract and job insecurity when estimating psychological well-being. It showed that job insecurity was a significant and positive mediator in the model (b = –0.41, p = 0.013, two-tailed). Job insecurity was a full mediator of the relationship between contract type and psychological well-being. At the same time, the effect of job insecurity on psychological well-being was also marginally contingent on the level of employment security (b = –0.10, p = 0.091, two-tailed), indicating that individuals in insecure jobs who report higher levels of employment security also enjoy higher psychological well-being compared to individuals in insecure jobs who report lower levels of employment security.

Table 4.

The moderation of the indirect effect of the employment contract on psychological well-being through job insecurity (a conditional process analysis).

	b	SE	t	p	LLCI	ULCI
Model 1 (job insecurity)
Constant	2.064	0.418	4.937	0.000	1.242	2.887
Fixed-term employment	0.713	0.175	4.065	0.000	0.368	1.057
Contract work	1.097	0.182	6.019	0.000	0.739	1.456
Gender (female)	0.031	0.111	0.275	0.784	–0.188	0.249
Age (years)	–0.010	0.006	–1.791	0.074	–0.022	0.001
Education (academic)	0.041	0.103	0.400	0.690	–0.162	0.245
Part-time working hours	–0.408	0.202	–2.019	0.044	–0.804	–0.011
Sector (tertiary)	0.360	0.350	1.029	0.304	–0.328	1.048
Model 2 (well-being)
Constant	5.126	0.534	9.604	0.000	4.076	6.176
Fixed-term employment	–0.057	0.124	–0.456	0.649	–0.301	0.188
Contract work	0.008	0.135	0.061	0.951	–0.258	0.274
Job insecurity	–0.408	0.164	–2.484	0.013	–0.730	–0.085
Employment security	–0.010	0.140	–0.069	0.945	–0.285	0.265
Job insecurity × Employment security	0.097	0.057	1.697	0.091	–0.015	0.210
Income security	–0.205	0.192	–1.067	0.287	–0.582	0.173
Job insecurity ×Income security	0.116	0.082	1.423	0.156	–0.044	0.277
Employment security × Income security	0.084	0.056	1.514	0.131	–0.025	0.193
Job insecurity × Employment security × Income security	–0.038	0.025	–1.551	0.122	–0.086	0.010
Gender (female)	0.287	0.078	3.681	0.000	0.134	0.440
Age (years)	0.011	0.004	2.466	0.014	0.002	0.019
Education (academic)	–0.189	0.071	–2.646	0.008	–0.330	–0.049
Part-time working hours	–0.461	0.140	–3.281	0.001	–0.737	–0.185
Sector (tertiary)	0.554	0.243	2.283	0.023	0.077	1.031

Notes. Unstandardised coefficients are reported. N = 380. Model 1: R² = 0.17, F(7, 372) = 10.47, p < 0.001; Model 2: R² = 0.30, F(14, 365) = 10.99, p < 0.001.

The moderation effects are visualised in Figure 2, which graphically depicts the interaction effects between job insecurity, employment security and income security on psychological well-being. From the graph, it is noticeable that high employment security buffers high job insecurity in cases of low income security, although the three-way interaction effect was not statistically significant (b = –0.04, p = 0.122, two-tailed). Overall, low job insecurity and high employment security resulted in higher psychological well-being, regardless of reported income security. This corresponds to the interaction effect between job insecurity and employment security in Model 2 (Table 4) (b = 0.10, p = 0.091, two-tailed).

Figure 2.

Moderating effect of employment and income security on the relationship between job insecurity and psychological well-being (levels of the predictors and moderators are –1 SD and +1 SD from the mean).

Job satisfaction

To begin with, we investigated whether job insecurity mediated the relationship between employment contract and job satisfaction (Hypothesis 1b). The results of the mediation analysis (N = 392; R² = 0.16, F(7, 384) = 7.00, p < 0.001; Model 2: R² = 0.18, F(8, 383) = 10.61, p < 0.001; Model 3: R² = 0.10, F(7, 384) = 5.99, p < 0.001) showed that, compared to permanent employment, fixed-term employment (b = – 0.21, p = 0.044, two-tailed) and contractual work reported significantly lower job satisfaction job (b = –0.50, p < 0.001, two-tailed). Again, this total effect was greater in contractual work arrangements than in fixed-term work arrangements. Moreover, the results showed a negative and significant direct effect of job insecurity on job satisfaction (b = –0.18, p < 0.001, two-tailed). In this model, job insecurity was a full mediator of fixed-term employment on job satisfaction, while the direct effect of contract work remained significant although weakened (b = –0.30, p = 0.005, two-tailed).

Following the mediation analysis, we performed a moderated moderation analysis (N = 392; R² = 0.22, F(12, 379) = 8.66, p < 0.001) to test whether employment and income security moderated the path from job insecurity to job satisfaction. The analysis showed that the simple effect of job insecurity on job satisfaction was negative and significant (b = –0.36, p = 0.006, two-tailed). However, the simple effects of employment and income security on job satisfaction were not significant (b = 0.01, p = 0.911 and b = 0.08, p = 0.592, respectively). Moreover, all three interaction effects were non-significant, indicating that the effect of job insecurity on job satisfaction is not conditional on the level of employment security, income security, or their joint effect.

Finally, we modelled mediation and moderated moderation in a conditional process model, which is shown in Table 5. Model 1 in Table 5 confirmed the results of Model 1 in Table 4, showing the relationship between employment arrangement and job insecurity. In Model 2, we considered both employment contract and job insecurity when estimating job satisfaction. The results showed that job insecurity was a significant and positive mediator in the model (b = –0.31, p = 0.016, two-tailed). However, contract work remained a marginally significant predictor of job satisfaction, despite job insecurity mediating the relationship (b = –0.21, p = 0.055, two-tailed). Moreover, the effect of job insecurity was not contingent on employment and/or income security, since all interaction terms were non-significant.

Table 5.

The moderation of the indirect effect of the employment contract on job satisfaction through job insecurity (a conditional process analysis).

	b	SE	t	p	LLCI	ULCI
Model 1 (job insecurity)
Constant	2.022	0.419	4.828	0.000	1.199	2.845
Fixed-term employment	0.671	0.173	3.879	0.000	0.331	1.012
Contract work	1.097	0.181	6.069	0.000	0.742	1.452
Gender (female)	0.016	0.111	0.142	0.887	–0.202	0.233
Age (years)	–0.009	0.006	–1.604	0.110	–0.021	0.002
Education (academic)	0.025	0.103	0.240	0.810	–0.177	0.226
Part-time working hours	–0.377	0.199	–1.897	0.059	–0.768	0.014
Sector (tertiary)	0.387	0.350	1.105	0.270	–0.302	1.075
Model 2 (job satisfaction)
Constant	3.491	0.427	8.174	0.000	2.651	4.330
Fixed-term employment	–0.071	0.099	–0.714	0.475	–0.265	0.124
Contract work	–0.207	0.107	–1.928	0.055	–0.418	0.004
Job insecurity	–0.313	0.130	–2.413	0.016	–0.568	–0.058
Employment security	0.016	0.112	0.140	0.889	–0.204	0.235
Job insecurity × Employment security	0.057	0.045	1.250	0.212	–0.032	0.146
Income security	0.103	0.154	0.666	0.506	–0.201	0.407
Job insecurity × Income security	–0.008	0.065	–0.120	0.905	–0.136	0.121
Employment security × Income security	–0.026	0.045	–0.586	0.558	–0.114	0.062
Job insecurity × Employment security × Income security	0.002	0.020	0.081	0.936	–0.037	0.040
Gender (female)	0.042	0.062	0.670	0.504	–0.081	0.164
Age (years)	0.002	0.003	0.626	0.532	–0.005	0.009
Education (academic)	–0.081	0.057	–1.432	0.153	–0.193	0.030
Part-time working hours	–0.013	0.111	–0.119	0.905	–0.232	0.205
Sector (tertiary)	0.261	0.196	1.337	0.182	–0.123	0.646

Notes. Unstandardised coefficients are reported. N = 392. Model 1: R² = 0.16, F(7, 384) = 7.00, p < 0.001; Model 2: R² = 0.22, F(14, 377) = 7.72, p < 0.001.

Discussion

Flexicurity promises that greater flexibility in labour markets can be achieved without having to compromise organisational outcomes or the personal outcomes of individuals in non-permanent work arrangements. Greater flexibility in labour markets is achieved by increasing the use of temporary employment contracts and contract work. This trend decreases the job security of individuals employed in non-permanent arrangements. However, the proponents of the flexicurity model claim that the negative effects of job insecurity on individual and organisational outcomes can be successfully mitigated by establishing sufficient employment security and income security (see Wilthagen and Tros, 2004).

In this study, we explored the psychological well-being and job satisfaction of individuals in permanent, fixed-term and contractual work arrangements, taking into consideration their job insecurity, employment security and income security. We applied a policy model framework to identify the relationships between psychological variables. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to consider the joint effect of employment and income security on the relationship between job insecurity and psychological outcomes. In the process, we have connected policy research to industrial-organisational psychology research in order to contribute to the understanding of the psychological impacts of labour market policies that aim to compensate for a lack of job security in flexible work arrangements by focusing on employment and income security.

The results of our research confirm the flexicurity assumption that job insecurity is inherent to non-permanent employment arrangements. The results showed that the type of employment contract was the main predictor of perceived job insecurity in the model including the main socio-demographic and job-related variables – a finding that is consistent with those of Berglund and colleagues (2014). In addition, our results revealed that contract workers were on average more insecure about their job compared to fixed-term employees. This suggests a segmented labour market with multiple layers of differentiation between various types of non-permanent employment arrangements. It also indicates that these two groups of workers should not be treated as a homogeneous group of temporary employees, which is frequently the case in research (Imhof and Andresen, 2018). This conclusion is in agreement with findings reported by other researchers in the field (Kompier et al., 2009; Silla et al., 2005; Van Aerden et al., 2016; Wagenaar et al., 2012).

Although our main focus was not on the differences in employment and income security related to different types of employment contracts, it is worth discussing the differences revealed in our study. First, permanent employees reported the highest level of employment security, especially compared to contract workers. Previous research (Wagenaar et al., 2012) has shown that permanent workers are more employable than temporary or contractual workers, indicating that employability is related to the specific employment contract. Indeed, one’s employability plays an important role in the likelihood of entering non-permanent employment (De Lange et al., 2014; Gebel, 2010). Furthermore, a significant part of workers’ competence development happens on the job. Organisations have been shown to provide more opportunities to workers on permanent contracts (Finegold et al., 2005; Forrier and Sels, 2003; Virtanen et al., 2003) than to workers outside the organisation, who may have to take charge of their own employability by engaging in training off the job. Second, we observed no differences in perceived income security, although non-permanent employment has been associated with lower earnings (Elia, 2010). Income security, defined as the risk of material hardship in the case of unemployment, does not directly reflect the income generated from employment; rather, it is an assessment of the safety net provided by national institutions, as well as by family and friends, which buffers the financial consequences of a job loss. Therefore, relatively generous and wide coverage of unemployment benefits may decrease the differences among workers in different employment arrangements (Ignjatović and Hrast, 2018; Spasova et al., 2017).

Consistent with other research (Berglund, 2015; Cheng and Chan, 2008; Richter et al., 2014; Sverke et al., 2002), our results showed a negative relationship between job insecurity and psychological well-being. Furthermore, perceived job insecurity fully mediated the negative relationship between type of employment contract and psychological well-being. This means that the differences in perceived job insecurity explained the differences between flexible and permanent employees in terms of psychological well-being. An important implication of these findings is that job insecurity not only affects workers’ attitudes towards work or employment, but also has negative effects that spill over into other areas of their life, e.g. affecting their feelings of vitality, optimism and social support (see also Bakker and Demerouti, 2013). As a hindrance stressor (Cavanaugh et al., 2000; Podsakoff et al., 2007), job insecurity is characterised by high levels of uncertainty, low chances of control and a lot of frustration. Consequently, the experience of job insecurity depletes the personal resources needed to sustain optimal psychological functioning (Shoss, 2017).

In addition, we found a negative relationship between job insecurity and job satisfaction, as previously reported by Richter et al. (2014) and in two meta-analyses (Cheng and Chan, 2008; Sverke et al., 2002). However, in our study, we found job insecurity to be a full mediator of the relationship only in the case of fixed-term employment. Contract workers constitute an external labour market outside of the organisation (Durand, 2007), which is why they may experience less favourable job conditions and fewer job resources compared to employees inside the organisation. This is in addition to experiencing job insecurity, which is inherent to their work arrangement. Wagenaar and colleagues (2012) suggested that workers outside the organisation are often trapped in jobs that are both insecure and unstimulating. In this regard, economically dependent workers outside the organisation are the true precarious workers in a multi-layered labour market (Campbell and Price, 2016).

Besides the mediating role of job insecurity, we also considered the moderating role of employment and income security on the relationship between job insecurity and psychological outcomes. The analyses indicate that employment and income security do not mitigate the negative effects of job insecurity on the outcomes. Consequently, these results are not in line with the flexicurity model or the psychological literature indicating that employment and income security may reduce the severity of (the anticipated) job loss, thereby relieving the strain associated with job insecurity (Klandermans et al., 2010). Job insecurity is considered to be one of the strongest stressors (Buccheri et al., 2018; Scully et al., 2000); while employment security and income security might promote a sense of well-being (De Cuyper et al., 2008a, 2012; Taylor et al., 2011), according to our results, they (separately or jointly) are not be able to compensate for the lack of job security. This is especially evident in the case of job satisfaction. Drawing from equity theory (Adams, 1963), we suggest that job dissatisfaction among fixed-term and contract workers compared to permanent employees is the result of a perceived inequity between employee contributions and received benefits, including job security, when compared with permanent employees. Moreover, we put forward the idea that this effect on job attitudes will persist (regardless of the level of employment and income security) until the gap in job security and job characteristics between permanent and non-permanent employees is successfully closed. This will require appropriate human resource practices (Imhof and Andresen, 2018) and regulatory conditions (Karabchuk and Soboleva, 2020).

The results regarding the moderating role of employment security on the relationship between job insecurity and psychological well-being are less straightforward. In organisational research, employability has been championed as a substitute for job security (De Cuyper et al., 2019; Green, 2011). However, previous research has shown only a partial moderation effect (Green, 2011; Otterbach and Sousa-Poza, 2016; Silla et al., 2009). Taylor and colleagues (2011) also claimed that financial capability (the individual’s ability to manage and control financial matters) might help to protect the individual’s well-being more than financial security (the individual’s financial position). The moderating effect of employment security on the relationship between job insecurity and psychological well-being found in this study was only marginally significant. The moderation plots revealed that employment security may be beneficial in conditions of low income security. We interpret these results in line with appraisal theories (Lazarus, 1991; Smith and Kirby, 2009). Individuals in insecure jobs who perceive good opportunities for finding other employment if they lost their current employment experience less stress and therefore enjoy greater well-being than individuals who are equally insecure in their job but who perceive their employment opportunities as less favourable. Employability may be especially important for those who would face economic hardship in the event of job loss, as a quick transition to new employment is particularly important for this group of workers.

Our findings point to the importance of job security for psychological well-being and job satisfaction. Psychological well-being is important to an individual’s optimal functioning, quality of life and health (Diener, 2009; Diener and Chan, 2011; Ryff, 1989). Furthermore, job satisfaction functions as a mediator of the relationship between various antecedents and organisational outcomes, such as organisational citizenship behaviour, counterproductive workplace behaviour, turnover and performance (Alessandri et al., 2017; Crede et al., 2007). Therefore, policy-makers might want to prioritise secure jobs over flexible jobs with heightened employment and income security.

Limitations of the study

The first limitation of the study lies in its correlational design, which does not allow us to make claims about causality. That being said, the tested hypotheses correspond to the flexicurity framework. The second limitation is in our data collection and sample characteristics. The majority of the participants were recruited through organisations, which implies that their data were nested within groups. Since organisations were guaranteed anonymity and some of the participants did not belong to any of the organisations, it was not possible to test for common variance. In addition, the sample was biased in favour of those who were women, educated, young and employed in the tertiary sector. The third limitation is in the use of self-report measures, which are subjective in nature. However, given that one of the goals of this research was to use a psychological approach to predict socio-economic policy outcomes, the use of subjective measures supported the goals of our study.

It is worth noting that single-item predictors were employed to measure different types of subjective security. Single-item measures have several shortcomings related to measurement error, sensitivity (ability to discriminate between respondents), reliability and validity (Sarstedt and Wilczynski, 2009). Importantly, one of the consequences of using single-item measures instead of multi-item scales is weaker correlation between a predictor and an outcome variable due to lower variability in the data; this means that the reported effects are likely repressed.

Lastly, it is important to note that this study was conducted in a country where job security is perceived as very important (Kaasa, 2011). The results may vary across countries with different historical, cultural, social and economic backgrounds. Nevertheless, the congruence of our results with previous studies from a range of European countries (e.g. Berglund, 2015; De Cuyper et al., 2008b, 2010b; De Witte, 2005; De Witte et al., 2012) suggests that the importance of job security and the limited effectiveness of employment and income security in alleviating the negative effects of job insecurity are likely universal across different European countries.

Avenues for further research

The current study can be extended in several ways. First, the research exploring the relationship between job insecurity, employment security, income security and organisational behaviour has been scarce. This applies especially to psychological research in the area of income security, financial security and financial stress. Therefore, more research is needed to understand the relationships between different types of security and organisational behaviour, as well as the potential mediating role of job satisfaction in these relationships. Moreover, we recommend that researchers include variables related to perceived inequity in order to test the hypothesis that non-permanent employees are less satisfied with their jobs because they perceive there to be inequity in experienced benefits and contributions, or even inequity in available job resources and demands. Furthermore, it may be worth probing whether employers’ direct contributions to workers’ employment and income security might alleviate the negative effects of job insecurity.

To avoid the limitations of single-item measures, we propose that researchers employ multi-item measures of job, employment and income security. It is possible that the effects reported in the current study are repressed because we used single-item measures (Sarstedt and Wilczynski, 2009; Sverke et al., 2002). In addition, based on the results of our study, we recommend that researchers treat different types of non-permanent work arrangements as distinct and control for variables such as working hours.

Finally, this approach can be applied to other socio-economic policies. We believe this can greatly increase the applicability of psychological research and theory in the area of policy-making.

Conclusions

Job insecurity is primarily shaped by national regulation (Håkansson et al., 2020). It forms the basis for employment contract arrangements in the labour market (Barbieri and Cutuli, 2016; Kahn, 2007), which by and large guide perceptions of job insecurity (Dawson et al., 2017; Gallie et al., 2017). Proponents of the flexicurity model suggest that employment and income security can fully mitigate the negative effects of job insecurity (stemming from non-permanent [flexible] employment arrangements) on individual and organisational outcomes (see Wilthagen and Tros, 2004). This study is the first to test this proposition by investigating the joint effect of employment and income security on the relationship between job insecurity and psychological outcomes using individual-level data. The findings of our research suggest that the negative impact of job insecurity on job satisfaction and psychological well-being cannot be mitigated through increased employment and income security. These results align with recent macro-level findings by Voßemer and colleagues (2018), who showed that labour market policies supporting workers’ employability and providing income protection (i.e. active and passive labour market policies) fail to mitigate the negative effects of job insecurity on well-being. Drawing on the reviewed research and the results of our current study, European policy-makers should not count on increased employment and income security to buffer the detrimental consequences of job insecurity, but should rather focus on preventing job insecurity in the first place.

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

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Mojca Svetek

Author biography

Mojca Svetek is a doctoral student and teaching assistant at the School of Economics and Business, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia. She holds two Master’s degrees – one in Psychology (Faculty of Arts, University of Ljubljana) and one in Business Administration (School of Economics and Business, University of Ljubljana). She is the recipient of several academic awards, including the highly regarded Nahtigal Award (field of psychology), the Prešeren Award (field of economics and business) and the University of Ljubljana’s award for the best student achievements.

References

Adams

(1963) Towards an understanding of inequity. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 67(5): 422–463.

Aleksynska

(2018) Temporary employment, work quality, and job satisfaction. Journal of Comparative Economics 46(3): 722–735.

Alessandri

Borgogni

Latham

(2017) A dynamic model of the longitudinal relationship between job satisfaction and supervisor-rated job performance. Applied Psychology 66(2): 207–232.

Bakker

Demerouti

(2013) The spillover–crossover model. In: Grzywacz

Demerouti

(eds) Current Issues in Work and Organizational Psychology: New Frontiers in Work and Family Research. Hove: Psychology Press, pp. 55–70.

Banerjee

Iglewicz

(2007) A simple univariate outlier identification procedure designed for large samples. Communications in Statistics – Simulation and Computation 36(2): 249–263.

Barbieri

Cutuli

(2016) Employment protection legislation, labour market dualism, and inequality in Europe. European Sociological Review 32(4): 501–516.

Bartoll

Ramos

(2019) Quality of work, economic crisis, and temporary employment. International Journal of Manpower 41(1): 37–51.

Bekker

(2018) Flexicurity in the European semester: Still a relevant policy concept? Journal of European Public Policy 25(2): 175–192.

Bekker

Mailand

(2019) The European flexicurity concept and the Dutch and Danish flexicurity models: How have they managed the Great Recession? Social Policy & Administration 53(1): 142–155.

10.

Berglund

(2015) Flexicurity, job insecurity, and well-being in European labor markets. In: Vuori

Blonk

Price

(eds) Sustainable Working Lives, Managing Work Transitions and Health Throughout the Life Course. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 145–167.

11.

Berglund

Furaker

Vulkan

(2014) Is job insecurity compensated for by employment and income security? Economic and Industrial Democracy 35(1): 165–184.

12.

Bernhard-Oettel

De Cuyper

Schreurs

De Witte

(2011) Linking job insecurity to well-being and organizational attitudes in Belgian workers: The role of security expectations and fairness. The International Journal of Human Resource Management 22(9): 1866–1886.

13.

Bernhard-Oettel

Rigotti

Clinton

De Jong

(2013) Job insecurity and well-being in the temporary workforce: Testing volition and contract expectations as boundary conditions. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 22(2): 203–217.

14.

Bernhard-Oettel

Sverke

De Witte

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

15.

Berntson

(2008) Employability perceptions: Nature, determinants, and implications for health and well-being. Doctoral dissertation, Department of Psychology, Stockholm University.

16.

Berntson

Marklund

(2007) The relationship between perceived employability and subsequent health. Work & Stress 21(3): 279–292.

17.

Britt

Jex

(2015) Thriving under Stress: Harnessing Demands in the Workplace. New York: Oxford University Press.

18.

Buccheri

Musaad

Bost

Fiese

(2018) Development and assessment of stressful life events subscales: A preliminary analysis. Journal of Affective Disorders 226: 178–187.

19.

Burroni

Keune

(2011) Flexicurity: A conceptual critique. European Journal of Industrial Relations 17(1): 75–91.

20.

Callea

Urbini

Ingusci

Chirumbolo

(2016) The relationship between contract type and job satisfaction in a mediated moderation model: The role of job insecurity and psychological contract violation. Economic and Industrial Democracy 37(2): 399–420.

21.

Campbell

Price

(2016) Precarious work and precarious workers: Towards an improved conceptualisation. The Economic and Labour Relations Review 27(3): 314–332.

22.

Carleton

Kelly

(2019) Alternative work arrangements and job satisfaction. Atlantic Economic Journal 47(3): 293–309.

23.

Cavanaugh

Boswell

Roehling

Boudreau

(2000) An empirical examination of self-reported work stress among US managers. Journal of Applied Psychology 85(1): 65–74.

24.

Chadi

Hetschko

(2016) Flexibilization without hesitation? Temporary contracts and job satisfaction. Oxford Economic Papers 68(1): 217–237.

25.

Cheng

GHL

Chan

DKS

(2008) Who suffers more from job insecurity? A meta-analytic review. Applied Psychology 57(2): 272–303.

26.

Chiesa

Fazi

Guglielmi

Mariani

(2018) Enhancing substainability: Psychological capital, perceived employability, and job insecurity in different work contract conditions. Sustainability 10(7): paper no. 2475.

27.

Choi

Heo

Cho

Lee

(2020) The links between job insecurity, financial well-being and financial stress: A moderated mediation model. International Journal of Consumer Studies 44(4): 1–8.

28.

Crede

Chernyshenko

Stark

, et al. (2007) Job satisfaction as mediator: An assessment of job satisfaction’s position within the nomological network. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 80(3): 515–538.

29.

D’Ambrosio

Clark

Barazzetta

(2018) Unfairness at work: Well-being and quits. Labour Economics 51: 307–316.

30.

Dawson

Veliziotis

Hopkins

(2017) Temporary employment, job satisfaction and subjective well-being. Economic and Industrial Democracy 38(1): 69–98.

31.

De Cuyper

De Witte

(2005) Job insecurity: Mediator or moderator of the relationship between type of contract and various outcomes. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology 31(4): 79–86.

32.

De Cuyper

De Witte

(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(3): 395–409.

33.

De Cuyper

De Witte

(2007) Job insecurity in temporary versus permanent workers: Associations with attitudes, well-being, and behaviour. Work & Stress 21(1): 65–84.

34.

De Cuyper

De Witte

(2008) Volition and reasons for accepting temporary employment: Associations with attitudes, well-being, and behavioural intentions. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 17(3): 363–387.

35.

De Cuyper

Bernhard-Oettel

Berntson

, et al. (2008a) Employability and employees’ well-being: Mediation by job insecurity. Applied Psychology 57(3): 488–509.

36.

De Cuyper

De Jong

De Witte

, et al. (2008b) 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.

37.

De Cuyper

De Witte

Kinnunen

Nätti

(2010a) The relationship between job insecurity and employability and well-being among Finnish temporary and permanent employees. International Studies of Management & Organization 40(1): 57–73.

38.

De Cuyper

De Witte

Vander Elst

Handaja

(2010b) Objective threat of unemployment and situational uncertainty during a restructuring: Associations with perceived job insecurity and strain. Journal of Business and Psychology 25(1): 75–85.

39.

De Cuyper

Mäkikangas

Kinnunen

, et al. (2012) Cross-lagged associations between perceived external employability, job insecurity, and exhaustion: Testing gain and loss spirals according to the Conservation of Resources Theory. Journal of Internet Banking and Commerce 17(2): 1–20.

40.

De Cuyper

Notelaers

De Witte

(2009) Job insecurity and employability in fixed-term contractors, agency workers, and permanent workers: Associations with job satisfaction and affective organizational commitment. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 14(2): 193–205.

41.

De Cuyper

Piccoli

Fontinha

De Witte

(2019) Job insecurity, employability and satisfaction among temporary and permanent employees in post-crisis Europe. Economic and Industrial Democracy 40(2): 173–192.

42.

De Cuyper

Van der Heijden

De Witte

(2011) Associations between perceived employability, employee well-being, and its contribution to organizational success: A matter of psychological contracts? The International Journal of Human Resource Management 22(7): 1486–1503.

43.

De Jong

Schalk

(2010) Extrinsic motives as moderators in the relationship between fairness and work-related outcomes among temporary workers. Journal of Business and Psychology 25(1): 175–189.

44.

De Lange

Gesthuizen

Wolbers

(2014) Consequences of flexible employment at labour market entry for early career development in the Netherlands. Economic and Industrial Democracy 35(3): 413–434.

45.

De Witte

(2005) Job insecurity: Review of the international literature on definitions, prevalence, antecedents and consequences. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology 31(4): 1–6.

46.

De Witte

Näswall

(2003) Objective vs subjective job insecurity: Consequences of temporary work for job satisfaction and organizational commitment in four European countries. Economic and Industrial Democracy 24(2): 149–188.

47.

De Witte

De Cuyper

Vander

, et al. (2012) Job insecurity: Review of the literature and a summary of recent studies from Belgium. Romanian Journal of Applied Psychology 14(1): 11–17.

48.

De Witte

Pienaar

De Cuyper

(2016) Review of 30 years of longitudinal studies on the association between job insecurity and health and well-being: Is there causal evidence? Australian Psychologist 51(1): 18–31.

49.

Diener

(2009) Subjective well-being. In: Diener

(ed.) The Science of Well-Being. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 11–58.

50.

Diener

Chan

(2011) Happy people live longer: Subjective well-being contributes to health and longevity. Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being 3(1): 1–43.

51.

Diener

Wirtz

Tov

, et al. (2010) New measures of well-being: Flourishing and positive and negative feelings. Social Indicators Research 97: 143–156.

52.

Durand

(2007) The Invisible Chain: Constraints and Opportunities in the New World of Employment. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 93–111.

53.

Edwards

Rothbard

(2000) Mechanisms linking work and family: Clarifying the relationship between work and family constructs. Academy of Management Review 25(1): 178–199.

54.

Elia

(2010) Temporary/permanent workers’ wage gap: A brand-new form of wage inequality? Labour 24(2): 178–200.

55.

European Commission (2007) Towards Common Principles of Flexicurity: More and Better Jobs through Flexibility and Security. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.

56.

European Commission (2013) Flexicurity in Europe: Administrative Agreement (final report). Luxembourg. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=10227&langId=en

57.

Eurostat (2019) Employment and Unemployment (Labour Force Survey). Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/lfs/data/database

58.

Finegold

Levenson

Van Buren

(2005) Access to training and its impact on temporary workers. Human Resource Management Journal 15(2): 66–85.

59.

Forrier

Sels

(2003) Temporary employment and employability: Training opportunities and efforts of temporary and permanent employees in Belgium. Work, Employment and Society 17(4): 641–666.

60.

Gallie

Felstead

Green

Inanc

(2017) The hidden face of job insecurity. Work, Employment and Society 31(1): 36–53.

61.

Gebel

(2010) Early career consequences of temporary employment in Germany and the UK. Work, Employment and Society 24(5): 641–660.

62.

Gevaert

Van Aerden

De Moortel

Vanroelen

(2020) Employment quality as a health determinant: Empirical evidence for the waged and self-employed. Work and Occupations 47: 1–38.

63.

Green

Leeves

(2013) Job security, financial security and worker well-being: New evidence on the effects of flexible employment. Scottish Journal of Political Economy 60(2): 121–138.

64.

Green

Kler

Leeves

(2010) Flexible contract workers in inferior jobs: Reappraising the evidence. British Journal of Industrial Relations 48(3): 605–629.

65.

Green

(2011) Unpacking the misery multiplier: How employability modifies the impacts of unemployment and job insecurity on life satisfaction and mental health. Journal of Health Economics 30(2): 265–276.

66.

Håkansson

Pulignano

Isidorsson

Doerflinger

(2020) Explaining job insecurity for temporary agency workers: A comparison between Sweden and Belgium. Economic and Industrial Democracy 41(2): 254–275.

67.

Hastings

Heyes

(2018) Farewell to flexicurity? Austerity and labour policies in the European Union. Economic and Industrial Democracy 39(3): 458–480.

68.

Hayes

(2013) Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach. New York: The Guilford Press.

69.

Heyes

(2013) Flexicurity in crisis: European labour market policies in a time of austerity. European Journal of Industrial Relations 19(1): 71–86.

70.

Holman

(2013) Job types and job quality in Europe. Human Relations 66(4): 475–502.

71.

Holmes

Rahe

(1967) The social readjustment rating scale. Journal of Psychosomatic Research 11: 213–218.

72.

Howell

Kurai

Tam

(2013) Money buys financial security and psychological need satisfaction: Testing need theory in affluence. Social Indicators Research 110(1): 17–29.

73.

ICF GHK (2012) Evaluation of Flexicurity 2007–2010: Final Report (A report by ICF GHK to European Commission, Directorate-General Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities (VC/2011/0682)). Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=102

74.

Ignjatović

(2012) Labour market flexibility and security in the EU. Teorija in praksa 49(6): 901–921.

75.

Ignjatović

Hrast

(2018) Slovenian labour market policies under austerity: Narrowing the gap between the well- and the less well-protected in the labour market. In: Theodoropoulou

(ed.) Labour Market Policies in the Era of Pervasive Austerity: A European Perspective. Bristol: Policy Press, pp. 309–336.

76.

Imhof

Andresen

(2018) Unhappy with well-being research in the temporary work context: Mapping review and research agenda. The International Journal of Human Resource Management 29(1): 127–164.

77.

Jepsen

Pascual

(2005) The European social model: An exercise in deconstruction. Journal of European Social Policy 15(3): 231–245.

78.

Kaasa

(2011) Work values in European countries: Empirical evidence and explanations. Review of International Comparative Management 12(5): 852–862.

79.

Kahn

(2007) The impact of employment protection mandates on demographic temporary employment patterns: International microeconomic evidence. The Economic Journal 117(521): F333–F356.

80.

Kanjuo Mrčela

Ignjatović

(2015) Od prožnosti do prekarnosti dela: stopnjevanje negativnih sprememb na začetku 21. stoletja. Teorija in praksa 52(3): 350–381.

81.

Karabchuk

Soboleva

(2020) Temporary employment, informal work and subjective well-being across Europe: Does labor legislation matter? Journal of Happiness Studies 21(5): 1879–1901.

82.

Kauhanen

Nätti

(2015). Involuntary temporary and part-time work, job quality and well-being at work. Social Indicators Research 120(3): 783–799.

83.

Keim

Landis

Pierce

Earnest

(2014) Why do employees worry about their jobs? A meta-analytic review of predictors of job insecurity. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 19(3): 269–290.

84.

Keune

Jepsen

(2007) Not Balanced and Hardly New: The European Commission’s Quest for Flexicurity. Working paper. Brussels: European Trade Union Institute for Research, Education, Health and Safety.

85.

Kim

Kramer

Pak

(2020) Job insecurity and subjective sleep quality: The role of spillover and gender. Stress and Health. Epub ahead of print 30 July 2020. DOI: 10.1002/smi.2974

86.

Kinnunen

Mäkikangas

Mauno

, et al. (2011) Perceived employability: Investigating outcomes among involuntary and voluntary temporary employees compared to permanent employees. Career Development International 16(2): 140–160.

87.

Klandermans

Hesselink

Van Vuuren

(2010) Employment status and job insecurity: On the subjective appraisal of an objective status. Economic and Industrial Democracy 31(4): 557–577.

88.

Koenker

Bassett

(1982) Robust tests for heteroscedasticity based on regression quantiles. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society 50(1): 43–61.

89.

Kompier

Ybema

Janssen

Taris

(2009) Employment contracts: Cross-sectional and longitudinal relations with quality of working life, health and well-being. Journal of Occupational Health 51(3): 193–203.

90.

Lazarus

(1991) Progress on a cognitive-motivational-relational theory of emotion. American Psychologist 46(8): 819–834.

91.

Leka

Jain

(2010) Health Impact of Psychosocial Hazards at Work: An Overview. Geneva: World Health Organization.

92.

Lewandowski

Góra

Lis

(2017) Temporary Employment Boom in Poland: A Job Quality vs. Quantity Trade-Off? DP No. 11012. Bonn: IZA Institute of Labor Economics. Available at: www.iza.org/publications/dp/11012/temporary-employment-boom-in-poland-a-job-quality-vs-quantity-trade-off

93.

López

de le Court

Canalda

(2014) Breaking the equilibrium between flexibility and security: Flexiprecarity as the Spanish version of the model. European Labour Law Journal 5(1): 18–42.

94.

Mailand

(2010) The common European flexicurity principles: How a fragile consensus was reached. European Journal of Industrial Relations 16(3): 1–20.

95.

Muffels

Wilthagen

(2013) Flexicurity: A new paradigm for the analysis of labor markets and policies challenging the trade-off between flexibility and security. Sociology Compass 7(2): 111–122.

96.

Murphy

(2017) Irish flex-insecurity: The post-crisis reality for vulnerable workers in Ireland. Social Policy & Administration 51(2): 308–327.

97.

Nelissen

Forrier

Verbruggen

(2017) Employee development and voluntary turnover: Testing the employability paradox. Human Resource Management Journal 27(1): 152–168.

98.

TWH

Feldman

(2008) Can you get a better deal elsewhere? The effects of psychological contract replicability on organizational commitment over time. Journal of Vocational Behavior 73(2): 268–277.

99.

Origo

Pagani

(2009) Flexicurity and job satisfaction in Europe: The importance of perceived and actual job stability for well-being at work. Labour Economics 16(5): 547–555.

100.

Ortiz

(2010) Not the right job, but a secure one: Over-education and temporary employment in France, Italy and Spain. Work, Employment and Society 24(1): 47–64.

101.

Otterbach

Sousa-Poza

(2016) Job insecurity, employability and health: An analysis for Germany across generations. Applied Economics 48(14): 1303–1316.

102.

Peeters

De Cuyper

De Witte

(2016) Too employable to feel well? Curvilinear relationship between perceived employability and employee optimal functioning. Psihologia Resurselor Umane 14: 35–44.

103.

Podsakoff

LePine

(2007) Differential challenge stressor–hindrance stressor relationships with job attitudes, turnover intentions, turnover, and withdrawal behavior: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology 92(2): 438–454.

104.

Pogačnik

(1997) Lestvice delovne motivacije. Ljubljana: Center za psihodiagnostična sredstva.

105.

Pogačnik

(2000) Uporaba Lestvice delovnega zadovoljstva v slovenskih podjetjih. Psihološka obzorja 9(4): 105–114.

106.

Rajani

Giannakopoulos

Filippidis

(2016) Job insecurity, financial difficulties and mental health in Europe. Occupational Medicine 66(8): 681–683.

107.

Richter

Näswall

Bernhard-Oettel

Sverke

(2014) Job insecurity and well-being: The moderating role of job dependence. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 23(6): 816–829.

108.

Ryff

(1989) Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 57(6): 1069–1081.

109.

Sarstedt

Wilczynski

(2009) More for less? A comparison of single-item and multi-item measures. Die Betriebswirtschaft 69(2): 211–227.

110.

Scherer

(2001) Appraisal considered as a process of multilevel sequential checking. In: Scherer

Schorr

Johnstone

(eds) Appraisal Processes in Emotion: Theory, Methods, Research. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 92–120.

111.

Scully

Tosi

Banning

(2000) Life event checklists: Revisiting the social readjustment rating scale after 30 years. Educational and Psychological Measurement 60(6): 864–876.

112.

Shoss

(2017) Job insecurity: An integrative review and agenda for future research. Journal of Management 43(6): 1911–1939.

113.

Silla

De Cuyper

Gracia

, et al. (2009) Job insecurity and well-being: Moderation by employability. Journal of Happiness Studies 10(6): 739–751.

114.

Silla

Gracia

Peiró

(2005) Job insecurity and health-related outcomes among different types of temporary workers. Economic and Industrial Democracy 26(1): 89–117.

115.

Smith

Kirby

(2009) Putting appraisal in context: Toward a relational model of appraisal and emotion. Cognition and Emotion 23(7): 1352–1372.

116.

Society for Human Resource Management (2015) Employee Job Satisfaction and Engagement: Optimizing Organizational Culture for Success. Alexandria, VA: SHRM.

117.

Sora

Höge

Caballer

Peiró

(2019) Employment contract, job insecurity and employees’ affective well-being: The role of self-and collective efficacy. Economic and Industrial Democracy 40(2): 193–214.

118.

Spasova

Bouget

Ghailani

Vanhercke

(2017) Access to Social Protection for People Working on Non-Standard Contracts and as Self-Employed in Europe: A Study of National Policies. Brussels: European Commission.

119.

SURS (2018) Največja težava samozaposlenih je bil izpad prihodka v primeru bolezni. Available at: www.stat.si/statweb/News/Index/7302

120.

Svalund

Casinowsky

Dølvik

, et al. (2013) Stress testing the Nordic models: Manufacturing labour adjustments during crisis. European Journal of Industrial Relations 19(3): 183–200.

121.

Sverke

Hellgren

(2002) The nature of job insecurity: Understanding employment uncertainty on the brink of a new millennium. Applied Psychology 51(1): 23–42.

122.

Sverke

Hellgren

Näswall

(2002) No security: A meta-analysis and review of job insecurity and its consequences. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 7(3): 242–264.

123.

Tangian

(2007a) Is Flexible Work Precarious? A Study Based on the 4th European Survey of Working Conditions 2005. Paper for discussion No. 153. Available at: www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/21599/1/p_wsi_diskp_153_e.pdf

124.

Tangian

(2007b) Is Work in Europe Decent? A Study Based on the 4th European Survey of Working Conditions 2005. Paper for discussion No. 157. Available at: www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/21599/1/p_wsi_diskp_153_e.pdf

125.

Taylor

Jenkins

Sacker

(2011) Financial capability and psychological health. Journal of Economic Psychology 32(5): 710–723.

126.

Templeton

(2011) A two-step approach for transforming continuous variables to normal: Implications and recommendations for IS research. Communications of the Association for Information Systems 28(4): 41–58.

127.

Van Aerden

Puig-Barrachina

Bosmans

Vanroelen

(2016) How does employment quality relate to health and job satisfaction in Europe? A typological approach. Social Science and Medicine 158: 132–140.

128.

Van der Vaart

Linde

De Beer

Cockeran

(2015) Employee well-being, intention to leave and perceived employability: A psychological contract approach. South African Journal of Economic and Management Sciences 18(1): 32–44.

129.

Van Oorschot

Chung

(2015) Feelings of dual-insecurity among European workers: A multi-level analysis. European Journal of Industrial Relations 21(1): 23–37.

130.

Van Vuuren

De Jong

Smulders

(2019) The association between subjective job insecurity and job performance across different employment groups. Career Development International 25(3): 229–246.

131.

Vanhercke

De Cuyper

De Witte

(2016) Perceived employability and well-being: An overview. Psihhologia Resurselor Umane 14: 8–18.

132.

Vanhercke

Kirves

De Cuyper

, et al. (2015) Perceived employability and psychological functioning framed by gain and loss cycles. Career Development International 20(2): 179–198.

133.

Virtanen

Janlert

Hammarström

(2011) Exposure to temporary employment and job insecurity: A longitudinal study of the health effects. Occupational and Environmental Medicine 68(8): 570–574.

134.

Virtanen

Kivimäki

Virtanen

, et al. (2003) Disparity in occupational training and career planning between contingent and permanent employees. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 12(1): 19–36.

135.

Voßemer

Gebel

Täht

, et al. (2018) The effects of unemployment and insecure jobs on well-being and health: The moderating role of labor market policies. Social Indicators Research 138(3): 1229–1257.

136.

Wagenaar

Kompier

Houtman

, et al. (2012) 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.

137.

Wilkin

(2013) I can’t get no job satisfaction: Meta-analysis comparing permanent and contingent workers. Journal of Organizational Behavior 34(1): 47–64.

138.

Wilthagen

Rogowski

(2002) Legal regulation of transitional labour markets. In: Schmid

Gazier

(eds) The Dynamics of Full Employment: Social Integration through Transitional Labour Markets. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 233–273.

139.

Wilthagen

Tros

(2004) The concept of ‘flexicurity’: A new approach to regulating employment and labour markets. Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research 10(2): 166–186.

140.

Wilthagen

Boeri

Cahuc

, et al. (2007) Flexicurity Pathways: Turning Hurdles into Stepping-Stones. Tilburg: Tilburg Flexicurity Research Programme.

141.

Yeves

Bargsted

Cortes

, et al. (2019) Age and perceived employability as moderators of job insecurity and job satisfaction: A moderated moderation model. Frontiers in Psychology 10: 1–12.