Qualitative job insecurity and voice behavior: Evaluation of the mediating effect of affective organizational commitment

Abstract

Using social exchange theory as the foundation, this research examines the consequences of qualitative job insecurity on voice behavior, considering the indirect effect of affective organizational commitment. The hypotheses raised are tested using data drawn from a sample of 137 employees of a retailer in Chile at three time points. Workers with high qualitative job insecurity reported lower affective organizational commitment, which in turn decreased their voice behavior. Organizational leaders could encourage employee voice behaviors by reducing their perceptions of qualitative job insecurity and increasing their affective organizational commitment.

Keywords

Affective organizational commitment qualitative job insecurity voice behavior

Introduction

Globalization, intense business competition, and recent technological advances have changed the nature of work and labor relations, triggering multiple restructurings, massive layoffs, the diversification of contracts, and economic instability (Petermann and Zacher, 2020; Shin and Hur, 2019). This has been intensified by recent global economic crises and the current COVID-19 pandemic (Alcover et al., 2020; Wilson et al., 2020). Consequently, the number of unstable jobs has been increased (Chambel and Sobral, 2019). Thus, the levels of job insecurity experienced by workers have risen (Freeman, 2020; Qian et al., 2019) over previous years (Kalleberg, 2013; Rudolph et al., 2020; Shoss, 2017).

Job insecurity can be conceptualized on the basis of two dimensions. Specifically, quantitative job insecurity refers to the uncertainty about the loss of the job itself, whereas qualitative job insecurity refers to the fear of the loss of valued job characteristics (Hellgren et al., 1999). Both types of job insecurity are subjective in nature (Greenhalgh and Rosenblatt, 1984; Jiang and Lavaysse, 2018). Qualitative job insecurity denotes perceived threats to the quality of the employment relationship (Hellgren et al., 1999), such as salary, working hours, and organizational rewards (De Witte, 2005). In this sense, given the changes in working conditions due to rapid technological advancement and global recessions, such research has become relevant (Chirumbolo et al., 2020; Niesen et al., 2018). In other words, because of employment erosion (Stynen et al., 2015), qualitative job insecurity is likely to be more easily induced (Urbanaviciute et al., 2015), playing a more important role than quantitative job insecurity (Fischmann et al., 2015; Hellgren et al., 1999; Shoss, 2017).

However, although quantitative job insecurity and its negative consequences such as a decrease in job satisfaction, physical health, psychological well-being, organizational commitment, and turnover intentions have been extensively examined (Cheng and Chan, 2008; Gilboa et al., 2008; Jiang and Lavaysse, 2018), qualitative job insecurity has been less studied (Fischmann et al., 2015; Piccoli et al., 2021; Shoss, 2017).

The existing, yet scant research on the consequences of qualitative job insecurity has reported a decrease in worker well-being (De Witte et al., 2016), commitment (Urbanaviciute et al., 2015), job satisfaction (Urbanaviciute et al., 2015), organizational identification, and justice (Chirumbolo et al., 2017) as well as decreased depressive symptoms (Vander Elst et al., 2014), greater work demands, and conflict in the work–family relationship (Bandeira et al., 2021; Lästad et al., 2014). However, as noted, the consequences of qualitative job insecurity on performance have been less investigated (Jiang and Lavaysse, 2018; Probst et al., 2020; Sverke et al., 2019). Given the limited literature available, an understanding of its consequences on performance is yet to be developed (Callea et al., 2016; Fischmann et al., 2015, 2018). This becomes even more evident given the few studies that analyze specific types of performance such as the voice of workers (Berntson et al., 2010; Breevaart et al., 2020; Schreurs et al., 2015; Shoss, 2017; Sverke et al., 2019).

Voice behavior, an extra-role performance behavior, is described as the voluntary expression of ideas, information, and opinions that collaborate with the work context (Van Dyne and LePine, 1998). It constructively challenges the status quo, raises suggestions, and conveys concerns and opinions about relevant aspects of the job (Detert and Burris, 2007; Dundon and Gollan, 2007; Morrison, 2014). Voice behavior is essential for organizational effectiveness, providing mechanisms to develop innovation, aid learning, and prevent or correct errors (Botero and Van Dyne, 2009; Liu et al., 2010; Morrison, 2014). Similarly, it improves the performance of work units and develops new ways of organizing or restructuring tasks (Maynes and Podsakoff, 2014; Whiting et al., 2012). In this manner, workers develop ideas and suggestions, thus creating competitive advantage for the organization (Maynes and Podsakoff, 2014; Ng and Feldman, 2012; Van Dyne and LePine, 1998).

Although voice behaviors are relevant and desired by organizations, few studies have evaluated how voice is affected by job insecurity or explained their underlying mechanisms (Schreurs et al., 2015; Sverke et al., 2019). Indeed, researchers have indicated that the underlying mechanisms that test the relationship between job insecurity and performance variables are unknown (De Cuyper et al., 2020; De Witte et al., 2016). Hence, a systematic and theory-based understanding of how qualitative job insecurity affects worker voice behavior is lacking; this is the gap that we seek to bridge in this research. In other words, the present study aims to provide theoretical explanations for the link between qualitative job insecurity and employee voice behavior. To this end, we use social exchange theory as the foundation (Blau, 1964) and propose affective organizational commitment (Allen and Meyer, 1990) as an explanatory mechanism for the relationship between qualitative job insecurity (Hellgren et al., 1999) and voice behavior (Van Dyne and LePine, 1998). Given that cross-sectional research has been predominant in the studies of job insecurity and its relationship with performance (Jiang and Lavaysse, 2018; Probst et al., 2017), our research addresses the limitations of cross-sectional design (Fischmann et al., 2015; Niesen et al., 2018) by collecting data at three time points a month apart.

The present study contributes to the literature in several ways. First, most previous studies have evaluated the effects of quantitative job insecurity and performance behaviors (Cheng and Chan, 2008; Shoss, 2017). Along these lines, the few studies that have analyzed the relationship between job insecurity and voice have focused on the quantitative dimension (Breevaart et al., 2020; Schreurs et al., 2015; Shoss, 2017; Thaker et al., 2021). However, there is growing interest in understanding the effects of qualitative job insecurity due to increased competition, job transformation, and technological advances (Chirumbolo et al., 2017, 2020; Fischmann et al., 2018; Van den Broeck et al., 2014). For this reason, our research analyzes the consequences of qualitative job insecurity as a possible predictor of voice behavior.

Second, we evaluate these effects through the mediation of affective organizational commitment (Meyer and Allen, 1991) to explain how qualitative job insecurity may be related to voice behaviors. In this sense, we go a step further by providing information on the psychological mechanisms that explain the linkage between qualitative job insecurity and voice behaviors, contributing to the development of the nomological network in the area. In this way, we respond to the call of various researchers who request the incorporation of mediating mechanisms that better analyze the relationships between job insecurity and various performance behaviors (De Cuyper et al., 2020; Lee et al., 2018; Probst et al., 2018).

From a practical point of view, this research provides important recommendations to the leaders of organizations to increase employee voice behaviors and thus promote their effectiveness in situations of job uncertainty.

Qualitative job insecurity and voice behavior

Qualitative job insecurity is the subjective perception of the significant deterioration in the valued characteristics of employment by the worker (Niesen et al., 2018). Such characteristics include salary, working hours, relationships with colleagues, and work activities (Hellgren et al., 1999; Van Vuuren and Klandermans, 1990). In this sense, two employees working under the same conditions can present different levels of qualitative job insecurity (Greenhalgh and Rosenblatt, 1984; Van den Broeck et al., 2014). This study focuses on qualitative job insecurity and its effects on voice behavior. Voice is a ‘promotional behavior that emphasizes the expression of constructive challenge aimed at improving rather than simply criticizing’ (Van Dyne and LePine, 1998: 109). The action of expressing opinions and providing information is based on cooperative motives, benefiting the work environment (Van Dyne et al., 2003; Zhou and George, 2001). Voice behaviors are critical for organizational effectiveness, since they promote innovation, learning, and error correction (Morrison, 2014). Voice behavior encourages worker participation beyond the domain of the task, including non-formal behaviors not part of the job requirement (Van Dyne et al., 2003). It is characterized as discretionary and not explicitly recognized by the organization’s reward system (Chamberlin et al., 2017; Organ, 1998; Podsakoff et al., 2009). In this sense, voice where employees suggest changes and talk about issues for the benefit of the organization (Botero and Van Dyne, 2009; LePine and Van Dyne, 1998) has been interpreted as a specific type of extra-role performance behavior (Schreurs et al., 2015; Van Dyne and LePine, 1998; Van Dyne et al., 1995).

There is no systematic examination of how voice may be developed (Burris et al., 2017; Lam et al., 2019; Morrison, 2014; Ng and Feldman, 2012). The few studies of the relationship between job insecurity and voice behavior have yielded mixed results. Some research has shown that job insecurity reduces employees’ voice behaviors (Berntson et al., 2010; Schreurs et al., 2015; Shoss, 2017), while others present evidence of a positive relationship (Sverke and Goslinga, 2003). Still others review a curvilinear relationship between job insecurity and voice (Thaker et al., 2021).

Following previous studies, our research adopts social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) to explain the relationship between job insecurity and voice behaviors (Piccoli et al., 2017; Wong et al., 2005). The central argument of this theory is that both the employee and the employer develop mutual exchanges and search for reciprocity from their exchange relationship. At the same time, they feel obliged to establish high-quality relationships, primarily because they have exhibited beneficial behavior in the past (Blau, 1964; Gouldner, 1960). Similarly, for individual performance, if an organization treats its employees fairly, they are expected to respond positively (Shoss, 2017). Therefore, if the employer fails to provide job security that is expected by employees, employees react by reducing their favorable behaviors, including voice (Bultena, 1998; Huang et al., 2013). For instance, using a sample of workers from China, Wong et al. (2005) revealed a negative relationship between job insecurity and extra-role performance behavior, providing empirical evidence for social exchange theory. Other empirical researchers confirm the relationship between job insecurity and extra-role behaviors (Fischmann et al., 2015, 2018; Piccoli et al., 2017), as do meta-analyses (Cheng and Chan, 2008; Jiang and Lavaysse, 2018; Sverke et al., 2019) and literature reviews (Lee et al., 2018; Shoss, 2017).

Consequently, given the arguments presented, we predict that employees who present high levels of qualitative job insecurity respond by decreasing their voice performance behaviors due to the deterioration of the social exchange relationship (De Cuyper and De Witte, 2006; Reisel et al., 2010). Hence, we propose the following:

Hypothesis 1: Qualitative job insecurity is negatively related to voice behavior.

The mediating effect of affective organizational commitment

Although the negative relationship between job insecurity and performance is generally acknowledged (Cheng and Chan, 2008; Jiang and Lavaysse, 2018; Lee et al., 2018), little research has explicitly tested the extent to which it is mediated by affective variables (Charkhabi, 2019; Probst et al., 2018). Further, our knowledge of how and why this relationship exists with respect to specific behaviors such as voice is still limited (Berntson et al., 2010; Schreurs et al., 2015). In this line of reasoning, Shoss (2017) proposes the search for affective mechanisms to understand why job insecurity might be related to voice. Similarly, in a recent meta-analysis, Sverke et al. (2019) indicate the need to continue investigating how job insecurity is related to voice and call for scrutiny into new mediating mechanisms of their relationship.

The present study proposes that affective organizational commitment (Meyer and Allen, 1991) acts as a mediating mechanism of the relationship between qualitative job insecurity and voice behavior. Job insecurity causes negative emotional reactions that have important relevance to employee behaviors (De Cuyper and De Witte, 2006; López et al., 2017). One of these negative reactions implies a decrease in affective organizational commitment (Sverke et al., 2002). Affective organizational commitment reflects the emotional bond that employees establish with the organization as well as their identification with and participation in the organization (Meyer and Allen, 1997; Rhoades et al., 2001). This type of commitment is considered as one of the most relevant variables of the attachment relationship between organizations and workers (Lee et al., 2018; Sobral et al., 2019). Subjective in nature, affective commitment is the most essential dimension of organizational commitment, emphasizing its emotional component (Meyer et al., 2002; Ohana, 2016). Essentially, employees who are affectively committed to an organization may experience feelings of belonging and consider organizational problems as their own, thus tending to work harder (Meyer et al., 2002; Qian et al., 2019).

In particular, social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) has been used to establish the relationship between job insecurity and affective organizational commitment. This theory indicates that if workers receive benefits from the organization, they respond with positive attitudes and behaviors in the workplace. Thus, the parties are willing to collaborate, creating continuous exchange obligations (Gouldner, 1960; Homans, 1961). These types of exchanges are considered as valuable by both employees and their employer, generating a safer, more balanced, and more trusting environment (Colquitt, 2001; Meyer and Allen, 1991). If the organization cannot provide job security and therefore the employee–employer relationship deteriorates, employees may react by reducing their affective organizational commitment (Cheng and Chan, 2008; De Witte and Näswall, 2003). The study by Buitendach and De Witte (2005) of a sample of workers from South Africa presents empirical evidence of the negative relationship between job insecurity and affective organizational commitment. Likewise, meta-analyses confirm that job insecurity is negatively related to affective organizational commitment (Cheng and Chan, 2008; Hur, 2019).

On the other hand, emotionally committed employees are thus more likely to uphold their organizations’ values and goals. In the same way, such employees are more likely to share constructive and creative opinions voluntarily when the problems arise (LePine and Van Dyne, 1998; Qian et al., 2019; Van Waeyenberg et al., 2022). In other words, people who experience positive work environments and high-quality exchange relationships respond by displaying higher levels of favorable behaviors (Ng and Feldman, 2012; Stamper et al., 2009; Turnley and Feldman, 1999). As previously indicated, voice behavior is a type of extra-role performance that allows for the expression of opinions and improvements in the workplace (Van Dyne and LePine, 1998). Not surprisingly, affective commitment is one of the most relevant predictors of extra-role performance behaviors (Den Hartog and Belschak, 2007; Meyer and Allen, 1991; Riketta, 2002; Sonnentag, 2003). In particular, previous research has found a positive relationship between affective organizational commitment and employee voice (Beatty et al., 2012; Farndale et al., 2011; Kim et al., 2018; Machokoto, 2019; Maynes and Podsakoff, 2014; Ohana, 2016). For example, Maynes and Podsakoff (2014) empirically demonstrate that affective commitment is positively related to voice behaviors.

Together, based on social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) and the norm of reciprocity (Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005), we propose that when the benefits of job security provided by the organization are no longer available, the worker responds with negative attitudes (e.g., decreased affective commitment) and behaviors (e.g., decreased voice) in the workplace. Thus, with job insecurity representing the deterioration of the relationship between the employees and their employer (Schumacher et al., 2016), employees may respond to increased job insecurity by decreasing their affective commitment; on the other hand, reduced affective commitment is related to decreased voice behaviors. Therefore, in line with social exchange theory (Blau, 1964), we argue that affective organizational commitment is one of the mediators that explain the relationship between job insecurity and voice behaviors (Huang et al., 2013; Lee et al., 2018; Piccoli et al., 2017; Shoss, 2017). For example, Piccoli et al. (2021) demonstrate that affective organizational commitment can indirectly explain the relationship between job insecurity and performance.

In this sense, we anticipate that if the work environment provides a negative experience (e.g., decreased job insecurity), employees report decreased affective organizational commitment (Piccoli et al., 2011; Urbanaviciute et al., 2015), and subsequently respond with lower voice behaviors due to low-quality social exchanges (Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005; Gouldner, 1960; Ng and Feldman, 2012; Shoss, 2017; Van Dyne and LePine, 1998). Hence, we propose the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 2: Qualitative job insecurity is indirectly related to the voice performance of workers through affective organizational commitment.

Method

Participants and procedure

Our study was carried out using a face-to-face survey, consisting of three rounds between January and March 2020. The first data collection (Time 1), measuring qualitative job insecurity, was performed in January; the second collection (Time 2), measuring affective organizational commitment, was carried out in February; and the third collection (Time 3), measuring voice behavior, was carried out in March.

To mitigate common method bias, we adopted several methodological suggestions. First, potential respondents were informed that their participation was strictly voluntary, their anonymity and confidentiality would be kept, and there were no right or wrong answers (Chan, 2009; Conway and Lance, 2010). Second, the survey was conducted in three rounds with one month in between each measure to separately measure the predictor, the mediator, and the outcome (Ostroff et al., 2002; Podsakoff et al., 2003, 2012). Third, to establish discriminant validity, the data were analyzed using confirmatory factor analysis (McGonagle, 2017; Podsakoff et al., 2003; Simmering et al., 2015) and Harman’s single factor test (Andersson and Bateman, 1997; Aulakh and Gencturk, 2000).

Participants were employees of a Chilean retailer. As part of a large, competitive industry in the country, this organization has undergone various changes in recent months as a result of economic instability, global competitiveness (Stephany et al., 2022), layoffs, and reorientation toward remote working (Ministry of Labor of Chile, 2020; National Institute of Statistics of Chile, 2020).

The paper-version questionnaires were delivered to all employees in person by their respective human resources personnel to minimize interference with their activities. At the same time, the purpose and value of the research was explained and the voluntary nature of the project, respecting rights of participants, and assurance of confidentiality. Informed consent and a statement of voluntary participation were requested from each participant. A personal identification code was used to match each questionnaire over time.

As previously indicated, the participants completed the questionnaires one month apart for three months. The final sample size consisted of 137 workers. The analyses performed were carried out through deletion of a list of cases where data were missing (Piszczek, 2017). The sample represents a participation rate of 43% of the initial sample. The majority of the final sample (64.8%) were men, the mean age was 31.7 years (SD = 6.3), and mean tenure was 4.3 years (SD = 5.1). Only 2.9% of the workers had a professional education, 28.6% had achieved technical studies, and 68.6% had achieved high school studies. The final sample obtained represents in a good way the initial sample from the first round of the study (N = 317). The proportion of men and women, as well as the average age in both cases is similar. In addition, there were also no relevant variations in the information corresponding to the educational level of the workers.

The sample was representative of the population that works in the retail sector in Chile, experiencing also the problems and challenges of Chilean industry similarly to those of international industry (Goic et al., 2015; Jarpa et al., 2021; Stecher, 2012). Due to this, the retail sector has been selected as part of a large and competitive industry in the country, and in which its organizations have developed innovation processes and increased their production and competitiveness of products and services in recent years (Gardiazabal et al., 2020).

Measurements

All the scales have been validated and have good reliability with a Cronbach’s alpha above .70 (Nunnally and Bernstein, 1994). The survey was conducted in Spanish and the scales were translated following Brislin (1980). The first two authors independently translated all the measures used in this study from English into Spanish and again from Spanish into English. In cases of translation discrepancies, the two translators discussed the implications of these differences and agreed a final version of the respective items.

Qualitative job insecurity (Time 1; α = .89) was measured based on three items from Hellgren et al.’s (1999) scale. Participants responded to a seven-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). A sample item was ‘The salary growth within the organization is promising.’

Affective organizational commitment (Time 2; α = .87) was measured based on seven items from Allen and Meyer’s (1990) scale. Items were answered on a seven-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). A sample item was ‘I really feel that the problems of this organization are also mine.’

Voice behavior (Time 3; α = .95) was measured based on six items from Van Dyne and LePine’s (1998) scale. The responses ranged from 1 (very little) to 5 (a great deal). A sample item was ‘I develop and make recommendations on issues that affect my work group.’

Control variables

The effects of job insecurity can vary by education level and age (Cheng and Chan, 2008; Keim et al., 2014; Mauno and Kinnunen, 2002). Hence, following previous studies that evaluate the relationship between job insecurity and voice (Berntson et al., 2010; Schreurs et al., 2015), we controlled for educational level and age. Level of education was measured using a four-point scale from the highest to lowest grade.

Analytic strategy

Confirmatory factor analysis was performed using the Analysis of Moment Structures program, AMOS 24 (Arbuckle, 2014) from SPSS. The differences between a one-factor (Andersson and Bateman, 1997; Aulakh and Gencturk, 2000) and a three-factor structure were tested (each item loaded on its respective scale) and compared. We used maximum likelihood estimates with robust standard errors, thereby reducing the likelihood of bias due to selective attrition (Arbuckle, 2014; Asendorpf et al., 2014; Brown, 2006). Then, we tested the mediation hypotheses with the model 4 of the macro PROCESS (Hayes, 2013) of SPSS. We used 5000 bootstraps and a 95% confidence interval to estimate the effects. When a 95% confidence interval does not include zero, it indicates that the parameter is statistically significant.

Results

Table 1 presents results of confirmatory factor analysis. First, a three-factor model is presented (Model 2), with all the items of the scales loaded on their respective factor: qualitative job insecurity, affective organizational commitment, and voice behavior. Model 2 presents a limited goodness-of-fit: (χ² (df = 101) = 267.78; p < .000; incremental fit index [IFI] = .896; comparative fit index [CFI] = .895; Tucker–Lewis index [TLI] = .875; root-mean-square error of approximation [RMSEA] = .108). Thus, we inspected the modification indices and detected high levels of residual covariance errors. Because of this, a new model was tested (Model 3, Table 1), also including all the items and controlling for the correlations of the residual covariance errors. The result provided a good fit of the theoretical model for all the indices (χ² = 142.465; df = 96; p = .001; IFI = .971; CFI = .971; TLI = .964; RMSEA = .59), providing empirical support for the construct validity of variables (Iverson and Maguire, 2000; Korsgaard and Robertson, 1995). Finally, Harman’s single factor test was performed (Andersson and Bateman, 1997). The results of Model 1 in Table 1 show that all the goodness-of-fit measures provided poor indicators for the one-factor model (χ² = 808.601; df = 104; p = .000; IFI = .562; CFI = .558; TLI = .490; RMSEA = .219).

Table 1.

Comparison of the models and goodness-of-fit indices.

Model	χ²	df	p-value	IFI	CFI	TLI	RMSEA
Model 1	808.601	104	.000	.562	.558	.490	.219
Model 2	267.775	101	.000	.896	.895	.875	.108
Model 3	142.465	96	.001	.971	.971	.964	.059

Note. IFI = incremental fit index; CFI = comparative fit index; TLI = Tucker–Lewis index; RMSEA = root-mean-square error of approximation.

Table 2 shows the correlations, reliability, means, and standard deviations of study variables and control variables (i.e., age and educational level). As shown, qualitative job insecurity is negatively related to affective organizational commitment and voice behavior.

Table 2.

Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations between the variables.

		Mean	SD	1	2	3	4
1.	Qualitative job insecurity T1	3.75	1.52	(.89)
2.	Affective commitment T2	4.35	1.29	−.50**	(.87)
3.	Voice behavior T3	3.67	.92	−.20*	.37**	(.95)
4.	Age	31.7	6.30	−.17*	.20*	.09
5.	Educational level	3.66	.53	.02	.06	.06	.01

Note. The reliability of the scales is indicated on the diagonal in parentheses. *p < .05, **p < .01. N = 137.

Hypothesis 1 proposes that qualitative job insecurity might be negatively related to voice behavior. Age and educational level were added as covariates. As shown in Table 3, the results indicate that this relationship was not significant (B = –.04, p = .50). Therefore, qualitative job insecurity was not significantly related to voice behavior, failing to support Hypothesis 1.

Table 3.

Mediating effects of affective organizational commitment between qualitative job insecurity and voice behavior (PROCESS, model 4).

Predictive variable	B	SE	t	p
Outcome variable: Affective commitment (R² = .26, p < .001)
Qualitative job insecurity	−.40	.06	−6.27	< .001
Age	.02	.02	1.5	1.14
Educational level	.19	.18	1.02	.31
Outcome variable: Voice behavior (R² = .10, p = .007)
Qualitative job insecurity	−.04	.06	−.67	.50
Affective commitment	.19	.07	2.88	< .005
Age	.00	.01	.07	.95
Educational level	.04	.14	.26	.79
Bootstrap results for the indirect effect	Effect	SE	LLCI	ULCI
Affective commitment	−.08	.03	−.15	−.02

Note. N = 135. LLCI = Lower limit of the 95% confidence interval. ULCI = Upper limit of the 95% confidence interval. Bootstrap sample size = 5000. All the predictor variables were centered on the mean.

Hypothesis 2 proposes that qualitative job insecurity might be indirectly related to voice through affective organizational commitment. Age and educational level were added as covariates. The results showed a significant and negative relationship between qualitative job insecurity and affective organizational commitment (B = –.40, p < .001) and a significant and positive relationship between affective organizational commitment and voice behavior (B = .19, p < .005). Since the 95% confidence interval (–.15, –.02) did not include zero, the indirect effect of affective organizational commitment in the relationship between qualitative job insecurity and voice behavior is supported. In this manner, qualitative job insecurity was significantly related to voice behavior through the indirect effect of affective organizational commitment, supporting Hypothesis 2.

Discussion

Our research aimed to expand the theoretical explanations of the link between qualitative job insecurity and employee voice behavior. To this end, we used social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) and proposed that affective organizational commitment may explain the indirect effect between qualitative job insecurity and voice behavior. The results obtained demonstrate that qualitative job insecurity may have a negative impact on voice behavior via the reduction in affective organizational commitment.

Theoretical implications

Most studies that evaluate the relationship between job insecurity and voice behavior have focused on the quantitative dimension (Cheng and Chan, 2008; Jiang and Lavaysse, 2018; Shoss, 2017). Our research contributes to the nomological network of job insecurity by studying the rarely examined relationships between qualitative job insecurity on employee behaviors (Chirumbolo and Areni, 2010; Roll et al., 2015; Shoss, 2017). Furthermore, there is little research investigating the relationship between job insecurity and employee voice (Ng and Feldman, 2012; Sverke et al., 2019; Van Dyne and LePine, 1998). To the best of our knowledge, we are also the first to test an explanatory mechanism not previously evaluated in the relationship between job insecurity and voice, namely, affective organizational commitment.

The findings of our theoretical model show no evidence of a direct relationship between qualitative job insecurity and voice behavior. However, there is an indirect relationship between qualitative job insecurity and voice behavior through affective organizational commitment.

As mentioned prior, previous research has mixed conclusions regarding the relationship between job insecurity and voice. For example, Sverke and Goslinga (2003) similarly find no direct relationship between job insecurity and voice. They explain that employees might expect their co-workers to engage in voice behaviors and delegate to them the task of restoring job security through this behavior. We agree with this argument and theorize that compared to other behaviors, voice behavior is likely to be less affected by qualitative job insecurity, perhaps because participating in voice behavior is highly risky for employees given the unpredictability of a possible negative change in the assessed working conditions. That is, employees may not want to take the risk involved in exercising voice behaviors because it may involve retaliation by the organization such as exclusion and a change in work tasks, a loss of status, and a reduction in the possibilities of promotion (Schreurs et al., 2015). Likewise, according to social exchange theory (Blau, 1964), employees exposed to qualitative job insecurity may experience an imbalance in their social exchange relationship with the organization (Niessen and Jimmieson, 2016). In this sense, workers who feel insecure in their most valued working conditions may not positively affect the organization and will keep their suggestions to themselves and avoid actively exercising voice behaviors.

Our study is the first to demonstrate that affective organizational commitment can explain the relationship between qualitative job insecurity and voice behavior. That is, using social exchange theory (Blau, 1964), we find that when employees perceive that their valued working conditions are at risk, they experience lower affective organizational commitment, which consequently reduces their willingness to share relevant information about work tasks and challenge the status quo (i.e., to exercise voice behaviors). Thus, the risk of losing the valued characteristics of the job is relevant to whether one displays voice behaviors because of affective organizational commitment.

Our findings are in line with previous research that has indicated that variables related to social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) can explain the relationship between job insecurity and workplace behaviors (Cheng and Chan, 2008; Lee et al., 2018; Shoss, 2017). Similarly, our results reveal the link between job insecurity and voice behavior through an affective mechanism (i.e., affective commitment). Due to this, we expanded the research in this area, so that it could serve as a theoretical mechanism that accounts for an even greater number of ways in which employees exert voice at work.

Practical implications

Improving employee performance is a priority, particularly in competitive markets and under organizational uncertainty (Griffin et al., 2007). Our study indicates that when employees do not fear the loss of the valuable characteristics of their work (qualitative job insecurity), they report increased affective organizational commitment and then exercise greater voice behaviors. That is, they express concern about the work and share valuable information for the organization. Based on the results presented here, organizations should design strategies that mitigate the negative effects of qualitative job insecurity as well as encourage ideas, opinions, and quality suggestions from workers. Thus, the main priority of organizations’ leaders is to safeguard the job characteristics that are most valuable to employees, increasing predictability and control over their future.

On the other hand, affective organizational commitment explains the emotional attachment, identification, and involvement of the employees with the organization (Allen and Meyer, 1990). Managers can design ways to stimulate this type of commitment based on achieving greater identification with the organization. By providing employees with security about their valued working conditions, employees may develop affective commitment towards the organization, thereby increasing their voice behaviors.

Limitations and future research

Although our results are largely consistent with our proposed theoretical model and social exchange theory (Blau, 1964), it has some limitations that future studies should address. First, the performance construct is complex, and its measurement involves aspects such as type of performance, organizational context, cognitive, and motivational variables (DeNisi and Murphy, 2017; Motowidlo et al., 1986). Future research may incorporate different types of performance measures to complement the self-reports used here. In this case, it would be necessary to consider more objective performance measures since the self-evaluations could affect the presented results (Selenko et al., 2017) even though we adopted appropriate procedural recommendations to control common method bias in this investigation (Podsakoff et al., 2003).

Second, we expand previous research by focusing on qualitative job insecurity. Building on our findings, future studies may compare the predictive power of qualitative and quantitative job insecurity in the organizational contexts (Jiang et al., 2019; Probst et al., 2020; Sverke et al., 2019).

Third, although our study tested the indirect effect of qualitative job insecurity on voice behavior through affective organizational commitment, future research could also include other potential mediators and moderators that are theoretically aligned. Specifically, we invite the expansion of the social exchange theory as well as other theoretical frameworks, for example, stress, job preservation motivation, rigidity theory, and proactive coping. Using these, one could extend the explanations concerning the effects of job insecurity on voice behavior.

Fourth, our study collected data at different points in time to reduce common method bias (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Future studies could examine various time lags (e.g., weekly or annually) to understand the variation in the effects of job insecurity on voice performance behavior as well as establish causality between the variables.

Finally, although previous studies in the area have been carried out with smaller samples than those of this research, they obtained valid results that expand knowledge in this field (Breevaart et al., 2020; Mäder and Niessen, 2017; Mauno et al., 2001; Probst and Brubaker, 2001); we recommend conducting studies with larger samples and in different countries and contexts to allow for the broader generalization of the results to various organizations, groups of workers, and industrial sectors, especially considering that most studies of job insecurity come from the United States, China, and Europe (Shoss, 2017; Sverke et al., 2002, 2019).

Conclusions

The results of the present study contribute to the literature on qualitative job insecurity and its consequences on employee voice behavior. This research demonstrates the negative relationship between qualitative job insecurity and voice behavior through the indirect effect of affective organizational commitment. Thus, we expand knowledge on job insecurity and performance by demonstrating that affective mechanisms can explain the relationship between qualitative job insecurity and a specific type of performance behavior (i.e., voice). These findings can be used by employers and governments to consider that job insecurity involves not only the fear of job loss itself (quantitative job insecurity) but also a fear of loss of the conditions and valued job characteristics (qualitative job insecurity). They can also be useful for organizations to plan interventions and human resource strategies to reduce this negative perception; in the same way, promoting greater organizational commitment that is a relevant element that employees need in order to improve their performance.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

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

Funding

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

ORCID iDs

Felipe Muñoz Medina

Lixin Jiang

Author biographies

Felipe Muñoz Medina holds a PhD in Business Administration, University of Chile. He is assistant professor at the Technological Faculty, University of Santiago of Chile. His research interests are job insecurity, job performance, psychological well-being, and the work–technology relation. His work has been published in Economic and Industrial Democracy, Career Development International, and Revista de Administração de Empresas (Journal of Business Management).

Sergio López Bohle is an associate professor at the Faculty of Administration and Economics, University of Santiago. In terms of research, his areas of interest are perceptions of job insecurity, downsizing and layoffs, supervisor–employee relationships, and job performance. His work has been published in International Journal of Human Resource Management, Journal of Business Research, Journal of Business and Psychology, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, and European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology.

Lixin Jiang is a senior lecturer in the School of Psychology at University of Auckland. Her research interests lie in job insecurity, workplace safety, and occupational health psychology. Her work has been published in Journal of Applied Psychology, Journal of Management, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, and Work and Stress.

Maria José Chambel is associate professor at the Faculty of Psychology, University of Lisbon (Portugal) and Pro-Rector at the University of Lisbon. She has a PhD in social psychology and teaches in work and organizational psychology. She is member of the CicPsi of the University of Lisbon where she coordinates the group of work and organizational psychology. Her research interests lie within the area of the construction of work context that promotes health and well-being. She has published more than 100 articles, books, and book chapters. She has published her work in journals such as Journal of Organizational Behavior, Human Resource Management, International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, International Journal of Human Resource Management, and European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology. She is currently the principal investigator on the projects ‘Work–Family Boundary Dynamics in Non-traditional Jobs’ and the ‘Leadership Process and Firefighters’ Occupational Health: Development of an Intervention Program’.

Sebastian M Ugarte holds a PhD in Business and Management, University of Manchester. He is Director of the Master in Human Resource Management and Organizational Dynamics, Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Chile. His research interests are industrial relations, compensation systems, human resource management, and gender differences in pay and employment.

References

Alcover

Salgado

Nazar

, et al. (2020) Job insecurity, financial threat and mental health in the COVID-19 context: The buffer role of perceived social support. MedRxiv. DOI: 10.1101/2020.07.31.20165910

Allen

Meyer

(1990) The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology 63: 1–18.

Andersson

Bateman

(1997) Cynicism in the workplace: Some causes and effects. Journal of Organizational Behavior 18: 449–469.

Arbuckle

(2014) IBM SPSS Amos 23 User’s Guide. Wexford, PA: Amos Development Corporation.

Asendorpf

Van De Schoot

Denissen

JJA

Hutteman

(2014) Reducing bias due to systematic attrition in longitudinal studies: The benefits of multiple imputation. International Journal of Behavioral Development 38: 453–460.

Aulakh

Gencturk

(2000) International principal–agent relationships: Control, governance and performance. Industrial Marketing Management 29(6): 521–538.

Bandeira

Chambel

Carvalho

(2021) Influence of the work-family relationship on perceived health 5-years later: The moderating role of job insecurity. Social Indicators Research 153: 635–650.

Beatty

Schiller

Whooley

(2012) Six-minute walk test as a prognostic tool in stable coronary heart disease: Data from the heart and soul study. Archives of Internal Medicine 172(14): 1096–1102.

Berntson

Näswall

Sverke

(2010) The moderating role of employability in the association between job insecurity and exit, voice, loyalty and neglect. Economic and Industrial Democracy 31(2): 215–230.

10.

Blau

(1964) Exchange and Power in Social Life. New York: Wiley.

11.

Botero

Van Dyne

(2009) Employee voice behavior: Interactive effects of LMX and power distance in the United States and Colombia. Management Communication Quarterly 23(1): 84–104.

12.

Breevaart

Lopez Bohle

Pletzer

Muñoz Medina

(2020) Voice and silence as immediate consequences of job insecurity. Career Development International 25(2): 204–220.

13.

Brislin

(1980) Translation and content analysis of oral and written material. In: Triandis

Berry

(eds) Handbook of Cross-Cultural Psychology: Methodology. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, pp. 389–444.

14.

Brown

(2006) Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Applied Research. New York: Guilford Press.

15.

Buitendach

De Witte

(2005) Job insecurity, extrinsic and intrinsic job satisfaction and affective organisational commitment of maintenance workers in a parastatal. South African Journal of Business Management 36(2).

16.

Bultena

(1998) Social exchange under fire: Direct and moderated effects of job insecurity on social exchange. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering 59(4-B): 1894.

17.

Burris

Rockmann

Kimmons

(2017) The value of voice to managers: Employee identification and the content of voice. Academy of Management Journal 60(6): 2099–2125.

18.

Callea

Urbini

Chirumbolo

(2016) The mediating role of organizational identification in the relationship between qualitative job insecurity, OCB and job performance. Journal of Management Development 35(6): 735–746.

19.

Chambel

Sobral

(2019) When temporary agency work is not so temporary. Economic and Industrial Democracy 40(2): 238–256.

20.

Chamberlin

Newton

Lepine

(2017) A meta-analysis of voice and its promotive and prohibitive forms: Identification of key associations, distinctions, and future research directions. Personnel Psychology 70: 11–71.

21.

Chan

(2009) So why ask me? Are self-report data really that bad? In: Lance

Vandenberg

(eds) Statistical and Methodological Myths and Urban Legends: Doctrine, Verity and Fable in the Organizational and Social Sciences. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 309–336.

22.

Charkhabi

(2019) Quantitative job insecurity and well-being: Testing the mediating role of hindrance and challenge appraisals. Frontiers in Psychology 9: 2776.

23.

Cheng

GH-L

Chan

DK-S

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

24.

Chirumbolo

Areni

(2010) Job insecurity influence on job performance and mental health: Testing the moderating effect of the need for closure. Economic and Industrial Democracy 31(2): 195–214.

25.

Chirumbolo

Urbini

Callea

Tálamo

(2017) The impact of qualitative job insecurity on identification with the organization: The moderating role of overall organizational justice. Swiss Journal of Psychology 76(3): 117–123.

26.

Chirumbolo

Urbini

Callea

(2020) Dimensionality, reliability and validity of a multidimensional job insecurity questionnaire: Preliminary findings in the Italian context. Rassegna di Psicologia XXXVII(1): 35–46.

27.

Colquitt

(2001) On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology 86(3): 386–400.

28.

Conway

Lance

(2010) What reviewers should expect from authors regarding common method bias in organizational research. Journal of Business and Psychology 25: 325–334.

29.

Cropanzano

Mitchell

(2005) Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management 31(6): 874–900.

30.

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.

31.

De Cuyper

Schreurs

De Witte

Selenko

(2020) Impact of job insecurity on job performance introduction. Career Development International 25(3): 221–228.

32.

Den Hartog

Belschak

(2007) Personal initiative, commitment and affect at work. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 80(4): 601–622.

33.

DeNisi

Murphy

(2017) Performance appraisal and performance management: 100 years of progress? Journal of Applied Psychology 102(3): 421–433.

34.

Detert

Burris

(2007) Leadership behavior and employee voice: Is the door really open? Academy of Management Journal 50(4): 869–884.

35.

De Witte

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

36.

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.

37.

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.

38.

Dundon

Gollan

(2007) Re-conceptualising non-union voice. International Journal of Human Resource Management 18(7): 1182–1198.

39.

Farndale

Van Ruiten

Kelliher

Hope-Hailey

(2011) The influence of perceived employee voice on organizational commitment: An exchange perspective. Human Resource Management 50: 113–129.

40.

Fischmann

De Witte

Sulea

Iliescu

(2018) Qualitative job insecurity and in-role performance: A bidirectional longitudinal relationship? European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 27(5): 603–615.

41.

Fischmann

Sulea

Kovacs

, et al. (2015) Qualitative and quantitative job insecurity: Relations with nine types of performance. Psihologia Resurselor Umane Revista Asociaţiei de Psihologie Indusstrială şi Organizaţională 13: 152–164.

42.

Freeman

(2020) Pandemics can mean strike wave. Jacobin. Available at: www.jacobinmag.com/2020/04/coronavirus-pandemic-strike-wave-spanish-flu

43.

Gardiazabal

Bianchi

Saleh

(2020) The transformational potential of Latin American retail experiences. Journal of Services Marketing 34(6): 769–783.

44.

Gilboa

Shirom

Fried

Cooper

(2008). A meta-analysis of work demand stressors and job performance: Examining main and moderating effects. Personnel Psychology 61(2): 227–271.

45.

Goic

Bosch

Castro

(2015) Detecting inefficiently managed categories in a retail store. Journal of the Operational Research Society 66(1): 160–171.

46.

Gouldner

(1960) The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review 25(2): 161–178.

47.

Greenhalgh

Rosenblatt

(1984) Job insecurity: Toward conceptual clarity. Academy of Management Review 9(3): 438–448.

48.

Griffin

Neal

Parker

(2007) A new model of work role performance: Positive behavior in uncertain and interdependent contexts. Academy of Management Journal 50(2): 327–347.

49.

Hayes

(2013) Methodology in the Social Sciences. Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-based Approach. New York: Guilford Press.

50.

Hellgren

Sverke

Isaksson

(1999) A two-dimensional approach to job insecurity: Consequences for employee attitudes and well-being. European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology 8(2): 179–195.

51.

Homans

(1961) Social Behaviour: Its Elementary Forms. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc.

52.

Huang

Zhao

Niu

, et al. (2013) Reducing job insecurity and increasing performance ratings: Does impression management matter? Journal of Applied Psychology 98(5): 852–862.

53.

Hur

(2019) Job security matters: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the relationship between job security and work attitudes. Journal of Management & Organization. Epub ahead of print. DOI: 10.1017/jmo.2019.3

54.

Iverson

Maguire

(2000) The relationship between job and life satisfaction: Evidence from a remote mining community. Human Relations 53(6): 807–839.

55.

Jarpa

Halog

Guerrero

(2021) Circular economy implementation in Chilean retail industry. In: Muthu

(ed.) Circular Economy: Environmental Footprints and Eco-design of Products and Processes. Singapore: Springer.

56.

Jiang

Lavaysse

(2018) Cognitive and affective job insecurity: A meta-analysis and a primary study. Journal of Management 44: 2307–2342.

57.

Jiang

(2019) Can gossip buffer the effect of job insecurity on workplace friendships? International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 16(7): 1285.

58.

Kalleberg

(2013) Globalization and precarious work. Contemporary Sociology 42(5): 700–706.

59.

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.

60.

Kim

Choi

Borchgrevink

, et al. (2018) Effects of Gen Y hotel employee’s voice and team-member exchange on satisfaction and affective commitment between the U.S. and China. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 30(5): 2230–2248.

61.

Korsgaard

Robertson

(1995) Procedural justice in performance evaluation: The role of instrumental and non-instrumental voice in performance appraisal discussions. Journal of Management 21: 657–669.

62.

Lam

Lee

Sui

(2019) Say it as it is: Consequences of voice directness, voice politeness, and voicer credibility on voice endorsement. Journal of Applied Psychology 104(5): 642–658.

63.

Låstad

Berntson

Näswall

Sverke

(2014) Do core self-evaluations and coping style influence the perception of job insecurity? European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 23: 680–692.

64.

Lee

Huan

Ashford

(2018) Job insecurity and the changing workplace: Recent developments and the future trends in job insecurity research. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior 55(1): 335–359.

65.

LePine

Van Dyne

(1998) Predicting voice behavior in work groups. Journal of Applied Psychology 83(6): 853–868.

66.

Liu

Zhu

Yang

(2010) I warn you because I like you: Voice behavior, employee identifications, and transformational leadership. Leadership Quarterly 21(1): 189–202.

67.

López

Bal

Jansen

, et al. (2017) How mass layoffs are related to lower job performance and OCB among surviving employees in Chile: An investigation of the essential role of psychological contract. The International Journal of Human Resource Management 28: 2837–2860.

68.

McGonagle

(2017) Common method variance. In: Rogelberg

(ed.) The SAGE Encylopedia of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 191–194.

69.

Machokoto

(2019) The link between employee voice and affective commitment: A systematic review. Asian Journal of Interdisciplinary Research 2.

70.

Mäder

Niessen

(2017) Nonlinear associations between job insecurity and adaptive performance: The mediating role of negative affect and negative work reflection. Human Performance 30(5): 231–253.

71.

Mauno

Kinnunen

(2002) Perceived job insecurity among dual-earner couples: Do its antecedents vary according to gender, economic sector and the measure used? Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 75(3): 295–314.

72.

Mauno

Leskinen

Kinnunen

(2001) Multi-wave, multi-variable models of job insecurity: Applying different scales in studying the stability of job insecurity. Journal of Organizational Behavior 22(8): 919–937.

73.

Maynes

Podsakoff

(2014) Speaking more broadly: An examination of the nature, antecedents, and consequences of an expanded set of employee voice behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology 99(1): 87–112.

74.

Meyer

Allen

(1991) A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review 1: 61–89.

75.

Meyer

Allen

(1997) Commitment in the Workplace: Theory, Research, and Application. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

76.

Meyer

Stanley

Herscovitch

Topolnytsky

(2002) Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior 61(1): 20–52.

77.

Ministry of Labor of Chile (2020) Decreto 18 [Online]. Available at: www.bcn.cl/leychile/navegar?idNorma=1147206 (accessed 27 June 2020).

78.

Morrison

(2014) Employee voice and silence. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior 1: 173–197.

79.

Motowidlo

Packard

Manning

(1986) Occupational stress: Its causes and consequences for job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology 71(4): 618–629.

80.

National Institute of Statistics of Chile (2020) Boletín Complementario N°2. Remuneraciones y Costo de la Mano De Obra [Online]. Available at: www.ine.cl/docs/default-source/sueldos-y-salarios/boletines/espa%C3%B1ol/base-anual-2016-100/m%C3%B3dulo-covid-19-ir-icmo/bolet%C3%ADn_covid_jjas.pdf (accessed 20 December 2020).

81.

TWH

Feldman

(2012) Employee voice behavior: A meta-analytic test of the conservation of resources framework. Journal of Organizational Behavior 33: 216–234.

82.

Niesen

Hootegem

Handaja

, et al. (2018) Quantitative and qualitative job insecurity and idea generation: The mediating role of psychological contract breach. Scandinavian Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 3(1): 1–14.

83.

Niessen

Jimmieson

(2016) Threat of resource loss: The role of self regulation in adaptive task performance. Journal of Applied Psychology 101: 450–462.

84.

Nunnally

Bernstein

(1994) Psychometric Theory, 3rd edition. New York: McGraw-Hill.

85.

Ohana

(2016) Voice, affective commitment and citizenship behavior in teams: The moderating role of neuroticism and intrinsic motivation. British Journal of Management 27(1): 97–115.

86.

Organ

(1998) Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Good Soldier Syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

87.

Podsakoff

Whiting

Podsakoff

Blume

(2009) Individual- and organizational-level consequences of organizational citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology 94(1): 122–141.

88.

Ostroff

Kinicki

Clark

(2002) Substantive and operational issues of response bias across levels of analysis: An example of climate-satisfaction relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology 87: 355–368.

89.

Petermann

MKH

Zacher

(2020) Agility in the workplace: Conceptual analysis, contributing factors, and practical examples. Industrial and Organizational Psychology 13(4): 599–609.

90.

Piccoli

Callea

Urbini

, et al. (2017) Job insecurity and performance: The mediating role of organizational identification. Personnel Review 46(8): 1508–1522.

91.

Piccoli

Reisel

DeWitte

(2021) Understanding the relationship between job insecurity and performance: Hindrance or challenge effect? Journal of Career Development 48(2): 150–165.

92.

Piccoli

Witte

Pasini

(2011) Job insecurity and organizational consequences: How justice moderates this relationship. Romanian Journal of Applied Psychology 13(2): 37–49.

93.

Piszczek

(2017) Boundary control and controlled boundaries: Organizational expectations for technology use at the work–family interface. Journal of Organizational Behavior 38: 592– 611.

94.

Podsakoff

MacKenzie

Lee

Podsakoff

(2003) Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology 88: 879–903.

95.

Podsakoff

Mackenzie

Podsakoff

(2012) Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology 63: 539–569.

96.

Probst

Brubaker

(2001) The effects of job insecurity on employee safety outcomes: Cross-sectional and longitudinal explorations. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 6(2): 139–159.

97.

Probst

Gailey

Jiang

Lopez-Bohle

(2017) Psychological capital: Buffering the longitudinal curvilinear effects of job insecurity on performance. Safety Science 100: 74–82.

98.

Probst

Jiang

Benson

(2018) Job insecurity and anticipated job loss: A primer and exploration of possible interventions. In: Klehe

U-C

Hooft

(eds) The Oxford Handbook of Job Loss and Job Search. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 31–53.

99.

Probst

Jiang

López Bohle

(2020) Job insecurity and impression management: Which is the horse and which is the cart when it comes to job performance? Career Development International 25(3): 306–324.

100.

Qian

Yuan

Niu

Liu

(2019) Is job insecurity always bad? The moderating role of job embeddedness in the relationship between job insecurity and job performance. Journal of Management & Organization. DOI: 10.1017/jmo.2018.77

101.

Reisel

Probst

Chia

, et al. (2010) The effects of job insecurity on job satisfaction, organizational citizenship behavior, deviant behavior, and negative emotions of employees. International Studies of Management & Organization 40: 74–91.

102.

Rhoades

Eisenberger

Armeli

(2001) Affective commitment to the organization: The contribution of perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology 86(5): 825–836.

103.

Riketta

(2002) Attitudinal organizational commitment and job performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior 23: 257–266.

104.

Roll

Siu

Y and De Witte

(2015) Job insecurity: Cross-cultural comparison between Germany and China. Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance 2(1): 36–54.

105.

Rudolph

Allan

Clark

, et al. (2020) Pandemics: Implications for research and practice in industrial and organizational psychology. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice. DOI: 10.1017/iop.2020.48

106.

Schreurs

Guenter

Jawahar

De Cuyper

(2015) Speaking up when feeling job insecure. Journal of Organizational Change Management 28: 1107–1128.

107.

Schumacher

Schreurs

Van Emmerik

De Witte

(2016) Explaining the relation between job insecurity and employee outcomes during organizational change: A multiple group comparison. Human Resource Management 55: 809–827.

108.

Selenko

Mäkikangas

Stride

(2017) Does job insecurity threaten who you are? Introducing a social identity perspective to explain well-being and performance consequences of job insecurity. Journal of Organizational Behavior 38: 856–875.

109.

Shin

Hur

(2019) When do service employees suffer more from job insecurity? The moderating role of coworker and customer incivility. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 16(7): 1298.

110.

Shoss

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

111.

Simmering

Fuller

Richardson

Ocal

(2015) Marker variable choice, reporting, and interpretation in the detection of common method variance: A review and demonstration. Organizational Research Methods 18(3): 473–511.

112.

Sobral

Chambel

Castanheira

(2019) Managing motivation in the contact center: The employment relationship of outsourcing and temporary agency workers. Economic and Industrial Democracy 40(2): 357–381.

113.

Sonnentag

(2003) Recovery, work engagement, and proactive behavior: A new look at the interface between nonwork and work. Journal of Applied Psychology 88(3): 518–528.

114.

Stamper

Masterson

Knapp

(2009) A typology of organizational membership: Understanding different membership relationships through the lens of social exchange. Management and Organization Review 5(3): 303–328.

115.

Stecher

(2012) Perfiles identitarios de trabajadores de grandes empresas del retail en Santiago de Chile: Aportes psicosociales a la comprensión de las identidades laborales. Psykhe 21(2): 9–20.

116.

Stephany

Stoehr

Darius

, et al. (2022) The CoRisk-Index: a data-mining approach to identify industry-specific risk perceptions related to Covid-19. Humanities and Social Science Communications 9: 41

117.

Stynen

Forrier

Sels

De Witte

(2015) The relationship between qualitative job insecurity and OCB: Differences across age groups. Economic and Industrial Democracy 36(3): 383–405.

118.

Sverke

Goslinga

(2003) The consequences of job insecurity for employers and unions: Exit, voice and loyalty. Economic and Industrial Democracy 24(2): 241–270.

119.

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.

120.

Sverke

Låstad

Hellgren

, et al. (2019) A meta-analysis of job insecurity and employee performance: Testing temporal aspects, rating source, welfare regimes, and union density as moderators. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 16: 2536.

121.

Thaker

Jiang

(2021) A test of competing theoretical models of meaningful work as a moderator in the curvilinear relationship between job insecurity and employee voice. International Journal of Stress Management 28(3): 165–175.

122.

Turnley

Feldman

(1999) The impact of psychological contract violations on exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect. Human Relations 52(7): 895–922.

123.

Urbanaviciute

Lazauskaite-Zabielske

Vander Elst

, et al. (2015) Qualitative job insecurity, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment: The mediating role of control perceptions. Psihologia Resurselor Umane Revista Asociaţiei de Psihologie Indusstrială şi Organizaţională 13(2): 217–231.

124.

Van den Broeck

Sulea

Vander Elst

, et al. (2014) The mediating role of psychological needs in the relation between qualitative job insecurity and counterproductive work behavior. Career Development International 19: 526–547.

125.

Vander Elst

De Witte

De Cuyper

(2014) The job insecurity scale: A psychometric evaluation across five European countries. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 23(3): 364–380.

126.

Van Dyne

LePine

(1998) Helping and voice extra-role behaviour: Evidence of construct and predictive validity. Academy of Management Journal 41: 108–119.

127.

Van Dyne

Ang

Botero

(2003) Conceptualizing employee silence and employee voice as multidimensional constructs. Journal of Management Studies 40: 1359–1392.

128.

Van Dyne

Cummings

Parks

(1995) Extra-role behaviors: In pursuit of construct and definitional clarity. Research in Organizational Behavior 17: 215–285.

129.

Van Vuuren

Klandermans

(1990) Individual reactions to job insecurity: An integrated model. In: Drenth

PJD

Sergeant

(eds) European Perspectives in Psychology. Chichester: Wiley, pp. 133–146.

130.

Van Waeyenberg

Peccei

Decramer

(2022) Performance management and teacher performance: The role of affective organizational commitment and exhaustion. International Journal of Human Resource Management 33(4): 623–646.

131.

Whiting

Maynes

Podsakoff

(2012) Effects of message, source, and context on evaluations of employee voice behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology 97(1): 159–182.

132.

Wilson

Lee

Fitzgerald

(2020) Job insecurity and financial concern during the COVID-19 pandemic are associated with worse mental health. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine 62(9): 686–691.

133.

Wong

Y-T

Wong

C-S

Ngo

H-Y

Lui

H-K

(2005) Different responses to job insecurity of Chinese workers in joint ventures and state-owned enterprises. Human Relations 58(11): 1391–1418.

134.

Zhou

George

(2001) When job dissatisfaction leads to creativity: Encouraging the expression of voice. Academy of Management Journal 44(4): 682–696.