Examining the Mediating Role of Commitment to the Supervisor in Employees’ Affective Commitment: Temporary Employees Versus Permanent Employees

Abstract

One of the challenges faced by human resources management departments in recent years is how to manage employees with different employment contracts, in particular, temporary compared with permanent. This study tries to examine commitment to the supervisor as a mediating variable between psychological contract and empowerment, on one hand, and affective commitment, on the other. Commitment to the supervisor is considered a mediating variable since it emphasizes the importance of the supervisor’s role in the relationship between employees and the organization. The differences between commitment to the supervisor among temporary and permanent employees have not yet been studied, nor the effect of empowerment on organizational commitment among temporary employees. The sample comprised 367 permanent employees and 155 temporary employees from 11 organizations operating both in public and private sectors. Commitment to the supervisor partly mediated the relationships between empowerment, fulfillment of the psychological contract, and affective commitment among permanent and temporary employees. In practical terms, supervisors play a role in upholding and maintaining the psychological contract and cultivating employee empowerment, whether the employee is permanent or temporary.

Keywords

temporary employees commitment to the supervisor affective commitment psychological contract psychological empowerment

Introduction

Research interest in temporary employment, defined as dependent employment of limited duration (OECD, 2002), has increased enormously over the past decade. Temporary employment is perhaps one of the most attractive staffing instruments for achieving a competitive advantage through flexibility (Burgess & Connell, 2006; De Cuyper, De Witte, & Van Emmerik, 2011). However, temporary employees experience greater job insecurity than permanent ones (Balz, 2017). Therefore, integrating temporary employees into the organization and motivating them to contribute to achieving its purposes is essential. Though organizational commitment of temporary workers has been extensively studied (e.g., De Cuyper & De Witte, 2008a), De Cuyper et al. (2011) have suggested the need for further exploring how commitment among temporary workers may be enhanced by introducing additional foci of commitment.

One of the most significant developments in commitment theory over the past two decades has been the recognition that commitment to more than one of various foci is possible: for example, occupation, supervisor, team, customer, and union (Chughtai, 2013; Felfe & Schyns, 2010; Meyer & Herscovitch, 2001; Vandenberghe, Bentein, & Panaccio, 2017; Wombacher & Felfe, 2017).

The issue of organizational commitment of temporary employees has also grown more important to human resources management (HRM). The supervisor might be one of the most important foci of commitment for employees (Chen, Tsui, & Farh, 2002). Notably, while affective commitment to an organization reflects an impersonal and symbolic relationship (Haslam, 2004), commitment to the supervisor usually reflects a dyadic and interpersonal kind (Becker, 2009). The supervisor often interacts with employees on a daily basis, serving as an agent who bridges between the organization and its employees (Farh, Podsakoff, & Organ, 1990). Supervisors are particularly important because they are responsible for monitoring the performance of employees and deciding who merits rewards such as promotions (Panaccio & Vandenberghe, 2011). Little is known about the individual-level variables that relate to supervisory commitment among temporary employees. This study addresses this gap by exploring the relationship between commitment to the supervisor as a mediator variable that links psychological contract and psychological empowerment to affective commitment among permanent and temporary employees. Though it is difficult to inculcate organizational commitment among temporary employees, HRM can enhance it by strengthening commitment to the supervisor.

Social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) will be used as the conceptual framework for analyzing and explaining the relationship between commitment of permanent and temporary employees and their supervisors, or alternatively, the organization (De Cuyper et al., 2011). The dynamic element in social exchange theory emphasizes the exchange process and its development over time as a central concept (Emerson, 1987; Whitener, Brodt, Korsgaard, & Werner, 1998). Eisenberger, Huntington, and Hutchison (1986) delineate the relationship between employees and the organization using the notion of social exchange. The question we ask in this study is whether there is a difference in the exchange relationship between temporary and permanent employees and the supervisor or, alternatively, the organization. Employees’ exchange relationships with the organization to which they belong differ from those they engage in with the supervisor, who is in charge of monitoring their performance (Vandenberghe, Bentein, & Stinglhamber, 2004). A temporary work setting does not allow employees to form high-quality leader–member exchange relationships in the same way their permanent colleagues do (Flickinger, Allscher, & Fiedler, 2016).

This article aims to extend previous research in several ways: First, commitment to the supervisor is considered a suitable mediator because it emphasizes the importance of the role of the supervisor in the relationship between employee and organization. Despite the growing importance of commitment to the supervisor, relatively few studies have empirically investigated the consequences of this construct (Chughtai, 2013) and its causes, especially in the context of contract type. Second, the relationship between empowerment and organizational commitment has been extensively studied (Freire & Azevedo, 2015; Humborstad & Perry, 2011). However, the level of empowerment of temporary employees remains unclear. Third, the supervisor has a significant role in fulfilling the psychological contract and empowering employees. This study examines the relationship between psychological contract fulfillment, empowerment, and commitment to the supervisor based on the type of contract (see Figure 1). Finally, this study examines supervisor-related commitment as a mediator variable between psychological contract and empowerment, on one hand, and affective commitment, on the other. The practical implications of this study’s findings will help understand and identify fundamental patterns that may help close the gaps between permanent and temporary employees, which in turn may lead to development of new HRM strategies.

Figure 1.

The research model.

In the subsequent sections we will review relevant theories and research on all four of the conceptual constructs—organizational commitment, commitment to the supervisor, psychological contract, and psychological empowerment.

Theoretical Background

Commitment to the Supervisor Versus Organizational Commitment

Since Meyer and Allen (1991; Allen & Meyer, 1990) developed the three-dimensional commitments construct, it has been tested on many occasions, and it appears to be the most commonly held. They defined affective commitment, one of the construct’s components that has received the most attention, as “employee’s emotional attachment to, identification with, and involvement in the organization” (Meyer & Allen, 1991, p. 67). O’Reilly and Chatman (1986) distinguished three bases of commitment—compliance, identification, and internalization—and suggested that they “may represent separate dimensions of commitment” (p. 493) that focus on the employee’s psychological attachment to the organization. The recurring use of “identification” in the definitions of commitment clearly demonstrates the conceptual and empirical proximity of these two constructs (Riketta, 2005).

Commitment to the supervisor has been defined as “the relative strength of a subordinate’s identification with, attachment [to], and dedication to a particular supervisor” (Chen, Farh, & Tsui, 1998, p. 342). Identification occurs when the subordinate admires certain attributes of the supervisor, such as the supervisor’s attitudes and behavior, personality, or accomplishments (Becker, Billings, Eveleth, & Gibert, 1996; Gregersen, 1993). In essence, employees distinguish between commitment to the supervisor and commitment to the organization and between identification with each as bases for commitment to one or the other (Becker et al., 1996).

Social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) has been used as the conceptual underpinning of the exchange relationship between employee and supervisor. Employees are involved in at least two social exchange relationships at work: one with the organization and another with supervisors or managers (Tekleab & Chiaburu, 2010). Supervisors differ from organizations in that they constitute clear and concrete entities, whereas organizations are abstract ones. Therefore, commitment to the supervisors has been shown to be related to, yet distinct from, organizational affective commitment (Landry, Panaccio, & Vandenberghe, 2010). When interacting with a particular supervisor, an employee may experience work as more satisfying when they interact with certain supervisors (Chen, 2001; Huyghebaert Gillet, Becker, Kerhardy, & Fouquereau, 2017). When subordinates perceive their supervisors as trustworthy (Nwibere & Olu-Daniels, 2014) or supportive (Vandenberghe et al., 2004), they may reciprocate by demonstrating their commitment. In turn, supervisors are likely to reward employees who are committed to them with numerous tangible and intangible resources (Chughtai, 2013).

Thus far, studies have examined only the relationship between an employee’s contract—that is, permanent or temporary work—and organizational commitment (Biggs & Swailes, 2006; De Cuyper & De Witte, 2006b; Slattery & Rajan Selvarajan, 2005). The relationship between commitment to the supervisor and organizational commitment according to type of contract has not been sufficiently examined. Thus, the following research hypothesis is postulated:

Hypothesis 1: The relationship between commitment to the supervisor and affective commitment will be stronger among permanent employees than among temporary employees.

Psychological Contract Fulfillment

The psychological contract is an important variable within the perceived organizational membership framework (Epitropaki, 2013) and its role is central to understanding the employment relationship and its evolution over time (Cassar & Briner, 2011). Rousseau (1995) defines the psychological contract as “individual beliefs, shaped by the organization, regarding terms of an exchange agreement between individuals and their organization” (p. 9). Essentially, the psychological contract is a reciprocal process of “give and take” (Millward & Brewerton, 2000; Robinson, 1996; Rousseau, 2001) between the employee and the employer, each of whom benefits and exchange inducements (Coyle-Shapiro, 2002). The exchange relationships inherent to the psychological contract are consistent with Blau’s (1964) social exchange theory (De Cuyper, Rigotti, De Witte, & Mohr, 2008).

Blau (1964) was among the first to differentiate between social exchange and economic exchange: The former indicates long-term or open-ended and diffuse obligations, whereas the latter involves financial obligations without long-term implications (Flint, Haley, & McNally, 2013; Shore, Tetrick, Lynch, & Barksdale, 2006). Psychological contract consists of two dimensions that emphasize different types of exchange relationships between employee and employer (Bhatnagar, 2014): First, transactional obligations that were characterized by a close-ended time frame and the exchange of economic resources; second, relational obligations, which involved an open-ended time frame and the exchange of socioemotional resources (Rousseau & McLean Parks, 1993; Rousseau & Tijoriwala, 1998). Temporary employees perceive their psychological contract as more transactional than permanent employees do (Millward & Brewerton, 1999), and as Isaksson, De Cuyper, Bernhard-Oettel, and De Witte (2010) noted, are thus more likely to perceive the transactional content is fulfilled than do permanent employees. De Cuyper and De Witte (2006a) found more perceived relational promises among permanent employees than temporary ones but failed to find differences with respect to transactional promises; The researchers, however, assumed that each group’s expectations from the employment relationship were different.

To examine the question of the relationship between psychological contract and affective commitment, this study focuses on fulfillment of psychological contract, which may have positive effects on employee commitment (De Cuyper, Rigotti, De Witte, & Mohr 2008; Hassan, Abdul-Rahman, & Basit, 2017) and vice versa (Epitropaki, 2013). Employees who are engaged in a psychological contract adapt their contractual obligations in response to how well the organization fulfills its obligations to them (Aselage & Eisenberger, 2003; Coyle-Shapiro & Kessler, 2002). Fulfillment of the psychological contract is positively related to temporary employees’ commitment toward the host organization (Morf, Arnold, & Staffelbach, 2014). José Chambel (2014) further found that the relationship between supervisors’ psychological contract fulfillment to commitment was higher among temporary employees than among permanent employees. The difference may be due to the fact that the temporary employees who were studied had identical work conditions to the ones of the permanent employees. Since the findings of previous studies are inconclusive, this study will examine whether the relationship between psychological contract fulfillment and commitment to the supervisor provides additional insights. Thus, the following research hypotheses are postulated:

Hypothesis 2a: The relationship between fulfillment of transactional psychological contract and supervisor-related/affective commitment will be stronger among temporary employees than among permanent employees.

Hypothesis 2b: The relationship between fulfillment of relational psychological contract and supervisor-related/affective commitment will be stronger among permanent employees than among temporary employees.

Psychological Empowerment

Empowerment can be viewed as one of two types: “structural” (Kanter, 1997) or “psychological” (Spreitzer, 1995). Whereas structural empowerment is the perception of the presence or absence of empowering conditions in the workplace, psychological empowerment is an employee’s psychological interpretation or reaction to these conditions (Bhatnagar, 2007; Laschinger, Finegan, Shamian, & Wilk, 2004). In other words, empowerment is contextual (Foster-Fishman, Salem, Chibnall, Legler, & Yapchai, 1998) and can be viewed either as “behavior of a supervisor,” which empowers his or her subordinates, or as the “psychological state of a subordinate” resulting from the supervisor’s empowering (Lee & Koh, 2001). Robbins, Crino, and Fredendall (2002) suggested that the psychological empowerment as viewed by employees may then reflect their attitudes toward their work environment in the organizational context.

Spreitzer (1995, 1996), in pivotal groundwork, defined psychological empowerment as a motivational construct manifested in four cognitions: meaning (fit between work–role requirements and personal beliefs and values), competence (work-specific self-efficacy), self-determination (sense of choice in initiating and regulating actions), and impact (perceived influence on strategic, administrative, and operating outcomes at work). According to Spreitzer, psychological empowerment is a continuous variable in the sense that employees or individuals can be seen as less or more empowered, rather than empowered or not empowered. Each of the dimensions of psychological empowerment results from a cognitive process (Thomas & Velthouse, 1990), as well as from the supervisor’s being a provider of empowering experiences (Deci, Connell, & Ryan, 1989; Li, Wu, Johnson, & Wu, 2012).

Research on social exchange theory has shown that employees who feel they receive high levels of support from their organizations are more likely to perform better than those who do not (Eisenberger, Fasolo, & Davis-LaMastro, 1990). Empowerment that is driven by social exchange and its realization depends on cooperation between managers and employees. Assuming that principle of reciprocity holds, employees in organizations whose managers empower them will respond in kind with favorable behavior toward the organization (Chan, Taylor, & Markham, 2008; Zhu, May, & Avolio, 2004). Kuvaas and Dysvik (2009) found that investment in temporary employee development was positively related to social exchange, which in turn motivates higher levels of organizational citizenship behavior and task performance. Generally, previous studies have demonstrated the relationship between empowerment and organizational commitment (Baker, 2000; Freire & Azevedo, 2015; Humborstad & Perry, 2011; Jandaghi, Borghei, Matin, & Dastani, 2010).

Psychological empowerment positively and significantly affects an organization’s competitive edge (Dhruba-Kumar & Sunita-Bhandari, 2017). Conversely, according to Kanter’s (1983) theory, when employees perceive that they do not have support and opportunity or access to resources, they feel powerless. However, the relationship between empowerment and organizational commitment among temporary employees has not been studied yet, apparently because empowerment of temporary employees is not generally considered essential, even though previous studies show that cultivation of temporary employees leads to positive results. For example, temporary employees who were trained by the organization accepted the organizational goals and values and developed a socioemotional relationship (Chambel & Sobral, 2011; Finegold, Levenson, & VanBuren, 2005). Similarly, supervisors who use training programs (Brown, Trevino, & Harrison, 2005) or promote work engagement (Chughtai, 2013) and other supportive aids may thereby encourage employees to demonstrate greater commitment to them in return. Thus, the following research hypothesis is postulated:

Hypothesis 3: The relationship between psychological empowerment and supervisor-related/affective commitment will be stronger among permanent employees than among temporary employees.

Commitment to the Supervisor as Key Mediator

Commitment to the supervisor as a mediator variable between psychological contract, psychological empowerment, and organizational commitment among permanent and temporary employees has not yet been studied, to the best of my knowledge; it has, however, been studied as a mediator variable between other individual and organizational determinants and organizational commitment.

Wittmer, Martin, and Tekleab (2010) found that leader–member exchange serves as a partial mediator for the relationship between procedural justice and organizational commitment. Research has shown that supervisors can provide employees with supportive experiences that can result in affective commitment (Philipp & Lopez, 2013). Flint et al. (2013) have demonstrated a full mediation effect of commitment to the supervisor on the effects of interpersonal justice on turnover intentions. Similarly, affective commitment to the supervisor was found to mediate a negative relationship between affective commitment to the organization and turnover (Vandenberghe et al., 2017). José Chambel (2014) found that supervisors’ psychological contract fulfillment partially mediated the relationship between organizational psychological contract fulfillment and affective commitment among temporary employees. This suggests that temporary employees establish a relationship with the organization partly through the relationship developed with the supervisor (Marks, 2001). The results of those preceding studies invite the question: Is commitment to the supervisor a mediator variable between psychological contract, psychological empowerment, and organizational commitment? Thus, the following research hypotheses are postulated:

Hypothesis 4a: Commitment to the supervisor will fully mediate the relationship between psychological contract and affective commitment only for permanent employees.

Hypothesis 4b: Commitment to the supervisor will partially mediate the relationship between psychological contract and affective commitment only for temporary employees.

Hypothesis 4c: Commitment to the supervisor will fully mediate the relationship between psychological empowerment and affective commitment only for permanent employees.

Hypothesis 4d: Commitment to the supervisor will partially mediate the relationship between psychological empowerment and affective commitment only for temporary employees.

Research Methodology

Procedure and Sample

To test the study’s hypotheses, data were collected by using a self-administered questionnaire that was distributed within 11 organizations operating either in Israel’s public or private sector. The organizations that were selected for this study were those that seemed most likely to employ individuals with permanent and temporary contracts and to yield data that would be generalizable (De Cuyper & De Witte, 2006a). The final sample consisted of 522 participants, after excluding those whose questionnaires were incomplete and those who declined to participate, which represented a 48% response rate, consistent with Baruch and Holtom’s (2008) study for data collected from individuals, namely, a response rate of 52.7% with a standard deviation of 20.4. Of those who completed the questionnaire, 367 (70.3%) had permanent contracts and the remaining 155 employees (29.7%) were employed through an agency for a limited time. According to OECD data, temporary employees constitute an average of approximately 12% of the workforce at organizations workforce (Scheel, Rigotti, & Mohr, 2013). The gap between the percentage of employees with a permanent contract and those with a temporary one has been repeatedly demonstrated in various studies (e.g., De Cuyper & De Witte, 2006a, 2008a; Scheel et al., 2013). The temporary and permanent samples differed with respect to several background variables. In the temporary sample, 59.4% were employed less than 1 year, whereas 76% of the permanent sample were employed 5 years. In the temporary sample, 54.8% were women, but in the permanent sample, only 43.8%. The mean age for temporary employees was 30 years and for permanent ones, 40 years (67.7% of the temporary employees were aged 30 years or younger, while 62.4% of the permanent employees were aged 41 years or older). In the temporary sample, 92.9% were employed as a worker or team supervisor compared with 50.7% of the permanent one. In the temporary sample, 44.5% had an academic education compared with 62.3% of the permanent one.

Measures

Rigorous standards were applied in this study to ensure the reliability of the questionnaire. All the measures that were adopted had been previously tested and proven reliable in past studies reported in the literature. Nonetheless, evaluation of internal consistency was performed using Cronbach’s alpha analysis (see Table 1). The original English-language questionnaires were translated into Hebrew using the back-translation method (McGorry, 2000). The questionnaire was pretested with a pilot sample of 30 student employees at various organizations to ensure that all the instructions for completing the questionnaire and the items were clear. The data and feedback collected from the pilot test were reviewed, and minor modifications on the translation were made.

Table 1.

Descriptive and Correlation Matrix.

	Mean	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
1. Type of contract	0.70	0.45	1
2. PC—Transactional	4.08	1.60	0.02	1 (0.84)
3. PC—Relational	4.65	1.47	0.20	0.53	1 (0.85)
4. E—Meaning	5.27	1.51	0.34	0.20	0.57	1 (0.93)
5. E—Competence	6.05	1.08	0.23	0.15	0.39	0.51	1 (0.89)
6. E—Self-determination	4.98	1.49	0.41	0.15	0.45	0.52	0.46	1 (0.91)
7. E—Impact	4.85	1.66	0.42	0.16	0.46	0.63	0.44	0.71	1 (0.95)
8. Commitment to Supervisor	3.42	0.94	0.23	0.29	0.51	0.51	0.30	0.37	0.41	1 (0.77)
9. Affective Commitment	3.48	0.82	0.28	0.28	0.46	0.46	0.23	0.28	0.33	0.49	1 (0.70)

Note. PC = psychological contract; E = empowerment. All correlations are significant at the .01 level. Cronbach alpha in parentheses.

Affective commitment was measured using the questionnaire developed and administered by Meyer, Allen, and Smith (1993), consisting of six items assessing the level of affective commitment on a 5-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Participants were asked to respond to items such as “I really feel as if this organization’s problems are my own.” Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was .70.

Commitment to the supervisor was measured with the questionnaire that Becker et al. (1996) developed and used. The measure was modified from five to four items, assessing the level of supervisor-related commitment on a 5-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Participants were asked to respond to items such as “I feel a sense of ‘ownership’ for my supervisor.” Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was .77.

Psychological contract was measured with the questionnaire that Coyle–Shapiro and Kessler (2003) developed and used. The nine-item questionnaire measured two dimensions, transactional psychological contract (α = .84) and relational psychological contract (α = .85), to assess the level of psychological contract fulfillment. A 7-point Likert-type scale from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very well fulfilled), in addition to a not owed category, was used. Participants were asked to respond to items such as “Fair pay for the responsibilities I have in my job.”

Psychological empowerment was measured using the questionnaire developed and used by Spreitzer (1995), which comprised 12 items for the following dimensions: meaning (α = .93), competence (α = .89), self-determination (α = .91), and impact (α = .95). The level of psychological empowerment was measured on a 7-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Participants were asked to respond to items such as “The work I do is very important to me.”

Type of Contract

Respondents were asked to specify whether their current employment contract was permanent or temporary using the following dummy codes: 0 represented temporary employees (i.e., fixed-term contract workers), and 1 represented permanent employees (i.e., open-ended employment).

Control Variables

To rule out alternative explanations for the relationships reported in this study, demographic variables were included: age was measured in years; gender (0 = male, 1 = female), education (0 = primary, 1 = academic), and organizational position (0 = worker, 1 = managerial position) were used as control variables. Previous research has shown that education, organizational position, age, and gender may possibly be antecedents of organizational commitment (Mathieu & Zajac, 1990); that gender is correlated with empowerment (Spreitzer, 1995); and that psychological contract is correlated with employees’ age (Bal, De Lange, Jansen, & Van der Velde, 2008). Tenure was not included because of its high correlation with type of contract (r = .64, p < .01).

Results

Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations are presented in Table 1. All variables displayed good internal consistency (αs > .70). Collinearity was tested before conducting the regression analysis using variance inflation factors (VIFs). Since the tolerance level was greater than 0.10, we ruled out multicollinearity (Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 1998).

Direct Relationship

To test Hypotheses 1 to 3, I used regression analysis for each hypothesis (see Table 2). In the first step of the analysis, the control variables (age, gender, education, organizational position) were entered. Consistent with Hypothesis 1, commitment to the supervisor was more positively related to affective commitment among permanent employees than among temporary employees (β = 0.46, p < .001). Contrary to Hypothesis 2a, fulfillment of transactional psychological contract was more positively related to commitment to the supervisor (β = 0.28, p < .001) and affective commitment (β = 0.26, p < .001) and was stronger among permanent employees than among temporary employees. Consistent with Hypothesis 2b, fulfillment of relational psychological contract was positively related to commitment to the supervisor (β = 0.49, p < .001) and affective commitment (β = 0.43, p < .001) and was stronger among permanent employees than among temporary employees. As predicted by Hypothesis 3, psychological empowerment was positively related to commitment to the supervisor (β = 0.50, p < .001) and affective commitment (β = 0.38, p < .001) and was stronger among permanent employees than among temporary ones.

Table 2.

Results of Regression Analysis for Research Variables.

Variables	H1: Supervisor Commitment–Affective Commitment (IV ⇒ DV)	H2a: Transactional Psychological Contract–Affective Commitment (IV ⇒ DV)	H2a: Transactional Psychological Contract–Supervisor Commitment (IV ⇒ DV)	H2b: Relational Psychological Contract–Affective Commitment (IV ⇒ DV)	H2b: Relational Psychological Contract–Supervisor Commitment (IV ⇒ DV)	H3: Psychological Empowerment–Affective Commitment (IV ⇒ DV)	H3: Psychological Empowerment–Supervisor Commitment (IV ⇒ DV)
Age	−0.01 (−0.21)	−0.04 (−0.83)	−0.05 (−0.93)	−0.05 (−1.02)	−0.06 (−1.20)	−0.09 (−1.67)	−0.11* (−2.26)
Gender	0.01 (0.26)	0.01 (0.31)	0.01 (0.33)	0.04 (0.94)	0.04 (1.06)	0.02 (0.59)	0.03 (0.68)
Education	0.03 (0.87)	0.08 (1.82)	0.07 (1.64)	0.01 (0.28)	−0.04 (−0.09)	0.00 (0.08)	−0.02 (−0.57)
Job	0.03 (0.31)	0.15 (1.55)	0.27** (2.82)	0.04 (0.39)	0.14 (1.62)	0.01 (0.16)	0.09 (1.00)
Contract Type	0.14 (1.70)	0.11 (1.28)	−0.04 (−0.41)	0.16^~ (7.23)	0.01 (0.21)	0.16 (1.75)	0.01 (0.10)
Supervisor Commitment	0.46*** (11.74)
Transactional Psychological Contract		0.26*** (6.38)	0.28*** (6.79)
Relational Psychological Contract				0.43*** (10.77)	0.49*** (712.48)
Psychological Empowerment						0.38*** (8.29)	0.50*** (11.58)
R ²	0.27	0.14	0.14	0.25	0.28	0.18	0.26
Adjusted R²	0.26	0.13	0.13	0.24	0.27	0.17	0.25
F	31.75***	14.26***	14.05***	27.82***	33.58***	19.29***	29.70***

Note. N = 522. IV = independent variable; DV = dependent variable. Standardized betas are reported; t values are shown in parentheses.

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

In addition, a t test was performed comparing between the permanent and temporary groups’ results for the variables that were formulated in Hypotheses 1 to 3 (see Table 3). All the mean scores, except for transactional psychological contract, were significantly higher among permanent employees compared with temporary employees.

Table 3.

Results of Independent t Test for Research Variables by Employees’ Status.

	Permanent employees (N = 367)		Temporary employees (N = 155)		t Test result
	Mean	SD	Mean	SD	t Test result
PC—Transactional	4.11	1.55	4.03	1.68	0.54
PC—Relational	4.85	1.40	4.19	1.49	4.80**
E—Meaning	5.61	1.27	4.48	1.74	7.28**
E—Competence	6.23	0.95	5.67	1.26	5.51**
E—Self-determination	5.39	1.26	4.03	1.59	10.42**
E—Impact	5.31	1.44	3.77	1.67	10.54**
Commitment to Supervisor	3.56	0.93	3.09	0.87	5.39**
Affective Commitment	3.63	0.81	3.13	0.73	6.88**

Note. PC = psychological contract; E = empowerment.

p ≤ .01

Mediation Hypotheses

To test the mediation effects theorized in Hypotheses 4a to 4d, I followed the techniques recommended by Baron and Kenny (1986). First, to test the mediation Hypotheses 4a to 4d, the independent variables (i.e., psychological contract and psychological empowerment) had to be shown to be significantly related to the dependent variable (affective commitment). Model c in Table 4 suggests that psychological contract is positively related to affective commitment for both permanent employees (β = 0.40, p < .001) and temporary employees (β = 0.41, p < .001). Second, the independent variable must be related to the potential mediator (i.e., commitment to the supervisor). Model a suggests that psychological contract was positively related to commitment to the supervisor for both permanent employees (β = 0.43, p < .001) and temporary employees (β = 0.47, p < .001). Third, the mediating variable (i.e., commitment to the supervisor) must be related to the dependent variable. Model b suggests that commitment to the supervisor was positively related to affective commitment for both permanent employees (β = 0.46, p < .001) and temporary employees (β = 0.48, p < .001). Fourth, Model d suggests that the effect of psychological contract on affective commitment decreased in absolute size for both permanent employees (from β = 0.40, p < .001, to β = 0.25, p < .001) and temporary employees (from β = 0.41, p < .001, to β = 0.24, p < .001), when controlling for the effect of commitment to the supervisor. These results indicate that commitment to the supervisor acted as a partial mediator of the relationship between psychological contract and affective commitment. In other words, these findings were consistent with Hypothesis 4b, but do not support Hypothesis 4a. Finally, Sobel (1982) provided an approximate significance test for the indirect effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable via the mediator that was recommended by Baron and Kenny (1986). The effect of commitment to the supervisor on psychological contract and affective commitment was statistically significant for both permanent employees (Sobel test statistic = 6.31, p < .001) and temporary employees (Sobel test statistic = 5.14, p < .001).

Table 4.

Results for Examining Commitment to Supervisor as a Mediator of the Psychological Contract–Affective Commitment Relationship.

Variables	a—Psychological Contract–Supervisor Commitment (IV ⇒ Mediator)		b—Supervisor Commitment–Affective Commitment (Mediator ⇒ DV)		c—Psychological Contract–Affective Commitment (IV ⇒ DV)		d—Psychological Contract–Affective Commitment (IV ⇒ DV; Mediator Controlled)
Variables	Permanent	Temporary	Permanent	Temporary	Permanent	Temporary	Permanent	Temporary
Age	−0.07 (−1.39)	0.01 (0.19)	0.00 (−0.51)	−0.09 (−1.37)	−0.05 (−0.93)	−0.09 (−1.32)	−0.02 (−0.49)	−0.09 (−1.47)
Gender	0.05 (0.95)	−0.03 (−0.48)	−0.01 (−0.14)	0.04 (0.66)	0.02 (0.48)	0.01 (0.16)	0.01 (0.17)	0.02 (0.35)
Education	0.01 (0.17)	0.10 (1.51)	0.03 (0.69)	0.02 (0.29)	0.05 (0.97)	0.04 (0.65)	0.05 (0.97)	0.01 (0.13)
Job	0.13* (2.43)	0.01 (0.12)	0.03 (0.61)	−0.09 (−1.22)	0.07 (1.29)	−0.09 (−1.34)	0.03 (0.49)	−0.09 (−1.47)
Psychological Contract	0.43*** (8.72)	0.47*** (7.23)			0.40*** (7.89)	0.41*** (6.04)	0.25*** (4.72)	0.24*** (3.29)
Supervisor Commitment			0.46*** (9.22)	0.48*** (7.23)			0.35*** (6.53)	0.36*** (4.96)
R ²	0.21	0.25	0.22	0.24	0.17	0.19	0.27	0.29
Adjusted R²	0.19	0.23	0.21	0.22	0.16	0.16	0.25	0.26
F	17.56***	11.78***	18.25***	11.52***	13.64***	8.29***	19.91***	11.93***
Sobel test							6.31***	5.14***

Note. N = 522. IV = independent variable; DV = dependent variable; VIF = variance inflation factor. VIF (permanent employees) = 1.27; VIF (temporary employees) = 1.33. Standardized betas are reported; t values are shown in parentheses.

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

The same procedure was used to test Hypotheses 4c to 4d (see Table 5). First, Model c suggests that psychological empowerment was positively related to affective commitment for both permanent employees (β = 0.36, p < .001) and temporary employees (β = 0.39, p < .001). Second, Model a suggests that psychological empowerment was positively related to commitment to the supervisor for both permanent employees (β = 0.50, p < .001) and temporary employees (β = 0.46, p < .001). Third, Model b suggests that commitment to the supervisor was positively related to affective commitment for both permanent employees (β = 0.46, p < .001) and temporary employees (β = 0.48, p < .001). Finally, Model d suggests that the effect of psychological empowerment on affective commitment decreased in absolute size for both permanent employees (from β = 0.36, p < .001, to β = 0.17, p < .001) and temporary employees (from β = 0.48, p < .001, to β = 0.24, p < .001), when controlling for the effect of commitment to the supervisor. This result indicates that commitment to the supervisor acted as a partial mediator of the relationship between psychological empowerment and affective commitment. In other words, these findings were consistent with Hypothesis 4d, but do not support Hypothesis 4c. The effect of commitment to the supervisor on psychological empowerment and affective commitment was statistically significant for both permanent employees (Sobel test statistic = 6.59, p < .001) and temporary employees (Sobel test statistic = 4.38, p < .001).

Table 5.

Results for Examining Commitment to Supervisor as a Mediator of the Psychological Empowerment–Affective Commitment Relationship.

Variables	a—Psychological Empowerment–Supervisor Commitment (IV ⇒ Mediator)		b—Supervisor Commitment–Affective Commitment (Mediator ⇒ DV)		c—Psychological Empowerment–Affective Commitment (IV ⇒ DV)		d—Psychological Empowerment–Affective Commitment (IV ⇒ DV; Mediator Controlled)
Variables	Permanent	Temporary	Permanent	Temporary	Permanent	Temporary	Permanent	Temporary
Age	−0.11* (−2.12)	−0.04 (−0.65)	0.00 (−0.51)	−0.09 (−1.37)	−0.07 (−1.26)	−0.14^~ (−1.95)	−0.03 (−0.53)	−0.12 (−1.84)
Gender	0.04 (0.91)	0.00 (0.01)	−0.01 (−0.14)	0.04 (0.66)	0.02 (0.35)	0.04 (0.56)	0.00 (0.02)	0.04 (0.60)
Education	−0.02 (−0.33)	0.00 (0.02)	0.03 (0.69)	0.02 (0.29)	0.03 (0.51)	−0.04 (−0.50)	0.03 (0.67)	−0.04 (−0.55)
Job	0.01 (0.14)	0.07 (1.06)	0.03 (0.61)	−0.08 (−1.22)	−0.01 (−0.12)	−0.04 (−0.53)	−0.01 (−0.18)	−0.06 (−0.99)
Psychological Empowerment	0.50*** (9.54)	0.46*** (6.52)			0.36*** (6.36)	0.39*** (5.32)	0.17*** (2.78)	0.21** (2.78)
Supervisor Commitment			0.46*** (9.22)	0.48*** (7.23)			0.38*** (6.95)	0.39*** (5.39)
R ²	0.24	0.21	0.22	0.24	0.12	0.16	0.24	0.28
Adjusted R²	0.23	0.19	0.21	0.22	0.11	0.13	0.22	0.25
F	20.66***	9.75***	18.25***	11.52***	9.19***	6.63***	16.81***	11.25***
Sobel test							6.59***	4.83***

Note. N = 522. IV = independent variable; DV = dependent variable; VIF = variance inflation factor. VIF (permanent employees) = 1.31; VIF (temporary employees) = 1.27. Standardized betas are reported; t values are shown in parentheses.

p < .06. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Discussion

One of the main aims of this study was to more deeply understand the differences between temporary and permanent employment outcomes and to demonstrate the role of commitment to the supervisor as an important variable intervening in this relationship. The results of this study provide new insight into the perceptions of permanent and temporary employees vis-à-vis the relationship between (a) psychological contract, (b) psychological empowerment, (c) commitment to the supervisor, and (d) affective commitment. The finding that commitment to the supervisor is a significant predictor of affective commitment is cause for reevaluating the importance of commitment to the supervisor to both permanent and temporary employees’ relationships with the organization. This finding supports past research that employees distinguish between commitment to the supervisor and commitment to the organization (Becker et al., 1996). Moreover, it accords with social exchange theory, which draws attention to the importance of the dyadic and interpersonal relationship between employees and their supervisor and the possibility that it leads to commitment to the supervisor (Becker, 2009).

Both psychological contract and empowerment have a stronger relationship with commitment to the supervisor and affective commitment among permanent employees than among temporary employees. Fulfillment of transactional psychological contract was more positively related to supervisor-related and affective commitment among permanent employees than among temporary employees, and not as predicted. Transactional psychological contract was the only variable that did not differ between permanent and temporary employees, suggesting that transactional promises may not be at the core of psychological contracts for both contract types. Previous studies on the psychological contract of temporary employees are inconclusive. De Cuyper and De Witte (2007) have also already found that transactional psychological contract does not serve as a distinguishing factor between the two contract types.

One of this study’s major contributions is in its revealing that the relationship between empowerment and commitment, which was known to exist among permanent employees, also exists among temporary employees. Empowerment is a continuous variable in the sense that employees or individuals can be seen as less or more empowered (Spreitzer, 1995), and it is not surprising that permanent employees feel more empowered than temporary ones. Empowerment of temporary employees may induce in them a sense of being valued and supported by their supervisor, which then relates to supervisor and affective commitment. This study strengthens the claim that temporary employees’ empowerment may be a yield-bearing investment. Empowerment reinforces socioemotional relationships between employees and supervisors, which promote affective commitment. When an individual voluntarily benefits another, social exchange theory predicts that feelings of obligation are engendered in return (Blau, 1964). Both permanent and temporary employees work together under the same supervisors and within the same organizations, yet are treated differently. Therefore, it is reasonable to assert that permanent employees perceive their work environment much differently than do temporary employees. Such a distinction can be assumed to lead to certain organizational issues that must be addressed by both the supervisor and the organization.

By closely examining commitment to the supervisor, this study found that it partly mediated between psychological contract and empowerment and affective commitment among both permanent and temporary employees, thereby adding a new insight into its role with respect to temporary employees. Trust in the supervisor was also found to be a mediator between participative leadership and affective commitment (Miao, Newman, Schwarz, & Xu, 2013). The daily exchange relationship between employees and supervisors possibly bridges between the organization and its employees (Farh et al., 1990).

Conclusion

Organizations that integrate temporary employees into the organization to gain a competitive advantage must also motivate them to contribute to achieving the organization’s purposes. We demonstrated that—despite what was thought until now—a relationship develops between temporary employees and supervisors, which is as important as it is for permanent employees. According to exchange theory, commitment to the supervisor usually reflects a dyadic and interpersonal relationship; this study’s findings show that it is worthwhile for supervisors to invest effort in creating and maintaining their psychological contracts with temporary employees and to empower them because it leads to affective commitment. In fact, commitment to the supervisor plays a key role in temporary employees’ perceptions of the organizational membership framework.

Research Limitations and Future Directions

As with any study, the results should be interpreted while bearing in mind the study’s limitations, which future research must address. First, the data used in this study were collected from a single source; thus, it is possible that the findings may be partly affected by a common method bias. Second, the research was cross-sectional, so any inferences of causality must be limited; a future longitudinal study would be needed to strengthen claims of causality. Third, all the respondents in this study were from one country, raising questions as to the findings’ generalizability. On the one hand, Harel and Tzafrir (1999) suggest that the Israeli environment provides researchers and practitioners a convenient laboratory to study and analyze advanced managerial practices inasmuch as it is a Madurodam (microcosm) for developed countries in Western Europe and North America. On the other hand, it is not clear to what extent the results can be replicated in different cultural contexts; additional studies in other countries are therefore needed. Finally, this study constitutes one further step toward understanding the differences between temporary and permanent employees. Still, the research model proposed here is not complete. Additional moderators and mediating variables should be studied to discover other relevant factors to supervisory commitment and to increase our knowledge in the field.

Practical Implications

A number of practical implications for HRM departments and supervisors alike can be drawn from this study. With the increase of varied employment contract types in organizations, there is a growing need to understand how managers and HRM departments should treat their employees. One recommendation arising from this study is to make supervisors more aware of their crucial role in strengthening workers’ commitment to the organization and to use the mechanism of psychological contract toward achieving this goal. The importance of the supervisor–employee relationship may stem from temporary employees’ desire to increase their chances for permanent employment by exhibiting favorable attitudes (Mauno et al., 2015) such as commitment to the supervisor. If so, by empowering temporary employees and enhancing their competencies, they will become more employable. A second recommendation is therefore that the transition from temporary- to permanent-employment status be considered integral to human resources policy and that human resource strategies with respect to temporary employees and HRM programs are necessary to increase temporary employees’ level of empowerment and relational psychological contract.

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.

Author Biography

Aviv Kidron is a researcher and lecturer at Department of Human Services in the Academic Yezreel Valley College. She received her PhD from the Faculty of Management at the University of Haifa in Israel. Her main research interests include HRM integration, manager-employee relationship, trust and political behavior.

References

Allen

N. J.

Meyer

J. P.

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

Aselage

Eisenberger

(2003). Perceived organizational support and psychological contracts: A theoretical integration. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 491-509.

Baker

D. K.

(2000). An examination of the relationship between employee empowerment and organizational commitment. Iowa City: University of Iowa.

Bal

P. M.

De Lange

A. H.

Jansen

P. G. W.

Van der Velde

M. E. G.

(2008). Psychological contract breach and job attitudes: A meta-analysis of age as a moderator. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 72, 143-158.

Balz

(2017). Cross-national variations in the security gap: Perceived job insecurity among temporary and permanent employees and employment protection legislation. European Sociological Review, 33, 675-692.

Baron

R. M.

Kenny

D. A.

(1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.

Baruch

Holtom

B. C.

(2008). Survey response rate and trends in organizational research. Human Relations, 6, 1139-1160.

Becker

T. E.

(2009). Interpersonal commitments. In Klein

H. J.

Becker

T. E.

Meyer

J. P.

(Eds.), Commitment in organizations: Accumulated wisdom and new directions (pp. 137-178). Florence, KY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.

Becker

T. E.

Billings

Eveleth

Gilbert

(1996). Foci and bases of employee commitment: Implications for job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 464-482.

10.

Bhatnagar

(2007). Talent management strategy of employee engagement in Indian ITES employees: Key to retention. Employee Relations, 29, 640-663.

11.

Bhatnagar

(2014). Mediator analysis in the management of innovation in Indian knowledge workers: The role of perceived supervisor support, psychological contract, reward and recognition and turnover intention. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 25, 1395-1416.

12.

Biggs

Swailes

(2006). Relations, commitment and satisfaction in agency workers and permanent workers. Employee Relations, 28, 130-143.

13.

Blau

P. M.

(1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York, NY: Wiley.

14.

Brown

M. E.

Trevino

L. K.

Harrison

(2005). Ethical leadership: A social learning perspective for construct development and testing. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 97, 117-134.

15.

Burgess

Connell

(2006). Temporary work and human resource management: Issues, challenges and responses. Personnel Review, 35, 129-140.

16.

Cassar

Briner

R. B.

(2011). The mediating role of violation between breach and organizational commitment and the moderating influence of exchange imbalance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 78, 282-289.

17.

Chambel

M. J.

(2014). Does the fulfillment of supervisor psychological contract make a difference? Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 35, 20-37.

18.

Chambel

J. M.

Sobral

(2011). Training is an investment with return in temporary workers. Career Development International, 16, 161-177.

19.

Chan

Y. H.

Taylor

R. R.

Markham

. (2008). The Role of Subordinates’ Trust in a Social Exchange driven Psychological Empowerment Process. Journal of Managerial Issues, 444-467.

20.

Chen

(2001). Further investigation of the outcomes of loyalty to supervisor. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 16, 650-660.

21.

Chen

Z. X.

Farh

J. L.

Tsui

A. S.

(1998). Loyalty to supervisor, organizational commitment, and employee performance: The Chinese case. Academy of Management Best paper Proceedings, 98, 1-9.

22.

Chen

Z. X.

Tsui

A. S.

Farh

J. L.

(2002). Loyalty to supervisors vs. organizational commitment: Relationships to employee performance in China. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75, 339-356.

23.

Chughtai

A. A.

(2013). Linking affective commitment to supervisor to work outcomes. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 28, 606-627.

24.

Coyle-Shapiro

J. A.

(2002). A psychological contract perspective on organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 927-946.

25.

Coyle-Shapiro

J. A. M.

Kessler

(2002). Contingent and non-contingent working in local government: Contrasting psychological contracts. Public Administration, 80, 77-101.

26.

Deci

E. L.

Connell

J. P.

Ryan

R. M.

(1989). Self-determination in a work organization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 580-590.

27.

De Cuyper

De Witte

(2006a). The impact of job insecurity and contract type on attitudes, well-being and behavioral reports: A psychological contract perspective. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 79, 395-409.

28.

De Cuyper

De Witte

(2006b). Autonomy and workload among temporary workers: Their effects on job satisfaction, organizational commitment, life satisfaction, and self-rated performance. International Journal of Stress Management, 13, 441-459.

29.

De Cuyper

De Witte

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

30.

De Cuyper

De Witte

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

31.

De Cuyper

De Witte

(2008b). Job insecurity and employability among temporary workers: A theoretical approach based on the psychological contract. In Nswall

Hellgren

Sverke

(Eds.), The individual in the changing working life (pp. 88-107). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

32.

De Cuyper

De Witte

Van Emmerik

(2011). Temporary employment. Career Development International, 16, 104-113.

33.

De Cuyper

Rigotti

De Witte

Mohr

(2008). Balancing psychological contracts: Validation of a typology. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 19, 543-561.

34.

Dhruba-Kumar

Sunita-Bhandari

(2017). Psychological empowerment of employees for competitive advantages: An empirical study of Nepalese service sector. International Journal of Law and Management, 59, 466-488.

35.

Eisenberger

Fasolo

P. M.

Davis-LaMastro

(1990). Effects of perceived organizational support on employee diligence, innovation, and commitment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 53, 51-59.

36.

Eisenberger

Huntington

Hutchison

(1986). Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 500-507.

37.

Emerson

(1987). Toward a theory of value in social exchange. In Cook

K. S.

(Ed.), Social exchange theory (pp. 11-58). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

38.

Epitropaki

(2013). A multi-level investigation of psychological contract breach and organizational identification through the lens of perceived organizational membership: Testing a moderated-mediated model. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34, 65-86.

39.

Farh

J. L.

Podsakoff

P. M.

Organ

D. W.

(1990). Accounting for organizational citizenship behavior: Leader fairness and task scope versus satisfaction. Journal of Management, 16, 705-721.

40.

Felfe

Schyns

(2010). Followers’ personality and the perception of transformational leadership: Further evidence for the similarity hypothesis. British Journal of Management, 21, 393-410.

41.

Finegold

Levenson

VanBuren

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

42.

Flickinger

Allscher

Fiedler

(2016). The mediating role of leader–member exchange: A study of job satisfaction and turnover intentions in temporary work. Human Resource Management Journal, 26, 46-62.

43.

Flint

Haley

L. M.

McNally

J. J.

(2013). Individual and organizational determinants of turnover intent. Personnel Review, 42, 552-572.

44.

Foster-Fishman

P. G.

Salem

D. A.

Chibnall

Legler

Yapchai

(1998). Empirical support for the critical assumptions of empowerment theory. American Journal of Community Psychology, 26, 507-536.

45.

Freire

C. M. F. D. C.

Azevedo

R. M. M.

(2015). Empowering and trustful leadership: Impact on nurses’ commitment. Personnel Review, 44, 702-719.

46.

Gregersen

H. B.

(1993). Multiple commitments at work and extra role behavior during three stages of organizational tenure. Journal of Business Research, 26, 31-47.

47.

Hair

J. F.

Jr. Anderson

R. E.

Tatham

R. L.

Black

W. C.

(1998). Multivariate data analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall International.

48.

Harel

G. H.

Tzafrir

S. S.

(1999). The effect of human resource management practices on the perceptions of organizational and market performance of the firm. Human Resource Management, 38, 185-199.

49.

Haslam

S. A.

(2004). Psychology in organizations: The social identity approach (2nd ed.). London, England: Sage.

50.

Hassan

Abdul-Rahman

Basit

(2017). The impact of psychological contract on organisational commitment: A study on public sector of Maldives. Journal of Human Resource Management, 20, 30-40.

51.

Humborstad

S. I. W.

Perry

(2011). Employee empowerment, job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Chinese Management Studies, 5, 325-344.

52.

Huyghebaert

Gillet

Becker

Kerhardy

Fouquereau

(2017). Examining the effect of affective commitment to the supervisor on nurses’ psychological health as a function of internal locus of control. Journal of Nursing Management, 25, 297-306.

53.

Isaksson

De Cuyper

Bernhard-Oettel

De Witte

(2010). The role of the formal employment contract in the range and fulfillment of the psychological contract: Testing a layered model. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 19, 696-716.

54.

Jandaghi

Borghei

Matin

H. Z.

Dastani

(2010). An examination of the relationship between empowerment and organizational commitment. International Journal of Human Sciences, 7, 1155-1172.

55.

Kanter

R. M.

(1983). Frontiers for strategic human resource planning and management. Human Resource Management, 22, 9-21.

56.

Kanter

R. M.

(1997). On the frontiers of management. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

57.

Kuvaas

Dysvik

(2009). Perceived investment in permanent employee development and social and economic exchange perceptions among temporary employees. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 39, 2499-2524.

58.

Landry

Panaccio

Vandenberghe

(2010). Dimensionality and consequences of employee commitment to supervisors: A two-study examination. Journal of Psychology, 144, 285-312.

59.

Laschinger

H. K. S.

Finegan

Shamian

Wilk

(2004). A longitudinal analysis of the impact of workplace empowerment on work satisfaction. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 527-545.

60.

Lee

Koh

(2001). Is empowerment really a new concept? International Journal of Human Resource Management, 12, 684-695.

61.

Johnson

D. E.

(2012). Moral leadership and psychological empowerment in china. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 27, 90-108.

62.

Marks

(2001). Developing a multiple foci conceptualization of the psychological contract. Employee Relations, 23, 454-467.

63.

Mayer

R. C.

Davis

J. H.

Schoorman

(1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20, 709-734.

64.

McGorry

S. Y.

(2000). Measurement in a cross-cultural environment: Survey translation issues. Qualitative Market Research, 3, 74-81.

65.

Meyer

J. P.

Allen

N. J.

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

66.

Meyer

J. P.

Herscovitch

(2001). Commitment in the workplace: Toward a general model. Human Resource Management Review, 11, 299-326.

67.

Meyer

J. P.

Allen

N. J.

Smith

(1993). Commitment to organizations and occupations: Extension and test of a three-component conceptualization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 538-551.

68.

Miao

Newman

Schwarz

(2013). Participative leadership and the organizational commitment of civil servants in China: The mediating effects of trust in supervisor. British Journal of Management, 24, 76-92.

69.

Millward

L. J.

Brewerton

P. M.

(1999). Contractors and their psychological contract. British Journal of Management, 10, 253-274.

70.

Millward

L. J.

Brewerton

P. M.

(2000). Psychological contracts: Employee relations for the 21st century. In Cooper

C. L.

Robertson

(Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 15, pp. 1-63). Chichester, England: Wiley.

71.

Morf

Arnold

Staffelbach

. (2014). The double psychological contracts of temporary agency workers. Employee Relations, 36, 708-726.

72.

Nwibere

B. M.

Olu-Daniels

S. O.

(2014). Trust and employees’ commitment to supervisor: The Nigerian experience. European Journal of Business and Management, 6, 121-133.

73.

OECD. (2002). Employment outlook. Paris, France: Author.

74.

O’Reilly

Chatman

(1986). Organizational commitment and psychological attachment: The effects of compliance, identification, and internalization on prosaically behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 492-499.

75.

Panaccio

Vandenberghe

(2011). The relationships of role clarity and organization-based self-esteem to commitment to supervisors and organizations and turnover intentions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 41, 1455-1485.

76.

Philipp

B. L.

Lopez

P. D. J.

(2013). The moderating role of ethical leadership: Investigating relationships among employee psychological contracts, commitment, and citizenship behavior. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 20, 304-315.

77.

Riketta

(2005). Organizational identification: A meta-analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66, 358-384.

78.

Robbins

T. L.

Crino

M. D.

Fredendall

L. D.

(2002). An integrative model of the empowerment process. Human Resource Management Review, 12, 419-443.

79.

Robinson

S. L.

(1996). Trust and breach of the psychological contract. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 574-599.

80.

Rousseau

D. M.

(1995). Psychological contracts in organizations: Understanding written and unwritten agreements. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

81.

Rousseau

D. M.

(2001). Schema, promise and mutuality: The building blocks of the psychological contracts. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74, 511-541.

82.

Rousseau

D. M.

McLean Parks

(1993). The contracts of individuals and organizations. In Cummings

L. L.

Staw

B. M.

(Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (pp. 1-43). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

83.

Rousseau

D. M.

Tijoriwala

S.A.

(1998). Assessing psychological contracts: Issues, alternatives, and types of measures. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 679-695.

84.

Scheel

T. E.

Rigotti

Mohr

(2013). HR practices and their impact on the psychological contracts of temporary and permanent workers. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24, 285-307.

85.

Shore

L. M.

Tetrick

L. E.

Lynch

Barksdale

(2006). Social and economic exchange: Construct development and validation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36, 837-867.

86.

Slattery

J. P.

Rajan Selvarajan

T. T.

(2005). Antecedents to temporary employee’s turnover intention. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 12, 53-66.

87.

Sobel

Michael E

. (1982). Asymptotic Confidence Intervals for Indirect Effects in Structural Equation Models. Sociological Methodology, 13, 290–312.

88.

Spreitzer

G. M.

(1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1442-1465.

89.

Spreitzer

G. M.

(1996). Social structural characteristics of psychological empowerment. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 483-504.

90.

Tekleab

Chiaburu

(2010). Social exchange: Empirical examination of form and focus. Journal of Business Research, 64, 460-466.

91.

Thomas

K. W.

Velthouse

B. A.

(1990). Cognitive elements of empowerment. Academy of Management Review, 15, 666-681.

92.

Vandenberghe

Bentein

Panaccio

(2017). Affective commitment to organizations and supervisors and turnover: A role theory perspective. Journal of Management, 12, 2090-2117.

93.

Vandenberghe

Bentein

Stinglhamber

(2004). Affective commitment to the organization, supervisor, and work group: Antecedents and outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64, 47-71.

94.

Whitener

E. M.

Brodt

S. E.

Korsgaard

M. A.

Werner

J. M.

(1998). Managers as initiators of trust: An exchange relationship framework for understanding managerial trustworthy behavior, Academy of Management Review, 23, 513-530.

95.

Wittmer

J. L. S.

Martin

J. E.

Tekleab

A. G.

(2010). Procedural justice and work outcomes in a unionized setting: The mediating role of leader-member exchange. American Journal of Business, 25, 55-70.

96.

Wombacher

J. C.

Felfe

(2017). Dual commitment in the organization: Effects of the interplay of team and organizational commitment on employee citizenship behavior, efficacy beliefs, and turnover intentions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 102, 1-14.

97.

Zhu

May

D. R.

Avolio

B. J.

(2004). The impact of ethical leadership behavior on employee outcomes: The roles of psychological empowerment and authenticity. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 11, 16-26.