• E-mail
• Print
• Comment
• Font Size
• Digg
• del.icio.us
• Discuss article

The Psychology of Casualization: Evidence for the Mediating Roles of Security, Status and Social Identification

Posted on: Saturday, 8 January 2005, 03:00 CST

Organizational research from a social identity perspective has shown that people expend effort on behalf of a work unit to the extent that the unit contributes to their sense of social identity. Moreover, it has been suggested that identification is enhanced to the extent that group members anticipate future interaction with one other (Worchel et al., 1998). This study examined these ideas in relation to the phenomenon of workplace casualization, looking at whether assigning individuals to different employment roles impacts on their intentions to contribute to the functioning of an organization in both typical and non-typical ways. In a scenario- based study, public sector employees (N = 138) indicated their willingness to contribute positively to the organization after being assigned either casual, temporary or permanent roles in a team that had, or did not have, a future. Consistent with the social identity approach (e.g., Haslam, 2004), results indicated that assignment to a permanent role increased willingness to contribute to the organization and that this was mediated by social identification.

In most industrialized countries the labour market is manifestly different from what it was 20 years ago with a reduction in full- time, permanent employment occurring concurrently with an impressive and swift growth in non-standard or 'precarious' employment arrangements (Burgess & Campbell, 1998). In Australia, the most significant form of precarious employment is casual employment, with this type of arrangement forming 69% of the net growth in employment between August 1988 and August 1998 (Australian Bureau of Statistics [ABS], 1999). Although often diverse in nature, casual employment arrangements are usually associated with a range of disadvantageous features including no expectation of continued employment, a lack of protection and no entitlements to benefits such as paid leave (ABS, 1999; Brosnan & Underbill, 1998; Burgess & Campbell, 1998). This rise in the proportion of people employed under casual employment contracts is referred to as casualization1 (Campbell, 1996; Campbell, 2000a) and the figures depicting its growth suggest that tomorrow's workforce will be built on casual as much as (if not more than) permanent employees.

This rapid increase in casual employment has resulted in a large literature and a lively debate dedicated to ascertaining the causes, describing the impact and assessing the desirability of the phenomenon known as casualization. On the one hand, it is argued that the increasing size of the casual labour force merely reflects the cost-effectiveness of employing casual workers over permanent "workers (Dawkins & Norris, 1990; Wooden & Hawke, 1998). That is, employers decide to hire employees on either a casual or permanent basis after calculating the relative costs and benefits of each (see Campbell, 1996). However, costs and benefits are construed here in terms of readily quantifiable outcomes (e.g., profit, productivity) rather than those that are more ephemeral and less tangible (e.g., employee development, organizational reputation). Indeed, in opposition to this approach, it has been argued (Campbell, 1996) that judgments about the relative merits of employing casual and permanent workers should recognize qualitative distinctions between the two. For example, focusing only on training and skill levels neglects the importance of, say, commitment in the workplace and this is liable to result in hidden costs for employers.

These 'hidden costs' are often attributed to a weakened attachment between casual employees and their employers (Campbell, 1996; Lewis, 1990; Micklethwait & Wooldridge, 1997; Purcell, Hogarth, & Simm, 1999; Romeyn, 1992; Solondz, 1995) and such a weakened attachment is thought responsible for negative outcomes that range from a reduction in the amount of effort expended at work to a reluctance to identify and rectify potentially costly workplace errors (Purcell et al., 1999). Despite its 'intuitive' appeal, however, solid evidence in support of this assumption is difficult to find. Even where there are clear objective disadvantages attached to casual work (Australian Centre for Industrial Relations Research and Training [ACIRRT], 1999; Australian Council of Trade Unions [ACTU], 1999; Junor, 1998; Smith & Ewer, 1999) these shortcomings are not always accompanied by relative levels of discontent (ACIRRT, 1999; Fogarty & Raatz, 1999). Moreover, the job insecurity literature, the psychological counterpart of casualization, has been unable to account for these kinds of inconsistencies. While there is some support for the widespread view that job insecurity is likely to impact negatively on organizations through a reduction in employee commitment and the like (e.g., Ashford, Lee, & Bobko, 1989; Lord & Hartley, 1998; Rosenblatt & Ruvio, 1996; Roskies & Louis- Guerin, 1990; see Hartley, Jacobson, Klandermans, & van Vuuren, 1991 and Sverke & Hellgren, 2002, for reviews), there is also evidence to suggest that, contrary to the negative stereotype of the uncommitted casual worker, in some circumstances workers employed on a less secure basis indicate higher levels of commitment or motivation than securely employed workers (e.g., Allan & Sienko, 1998; Pearce, 1993; van Dyne & Ang, 1998).

These inconsistencies negate the possibility of a straightforward account of the relationship between job insecurity and negative outcomes. More significantly, from a psychological standpoint, they leave unanswered the question of what it is about being employed on a precarious or insecure basis that is responsible for this relationship (Hartley et al., 1991; Pearce, 1998; Rosenblatt & Ruvio, 1996). Despite the fact many researchers assume there to be a direct link between job insecurity and employee attitudes, their studies almost always employ correlational designs, rendering questions of causality moot, and overlooking the role of potential mediating variables (Hartley et al., 1991; Pearce, 1998; Rosenblatt & Ruvio, 1996).

According to ideas contained within both social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979) and self-categorization theory (Turner, 1985; Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987), a willingness to exert oneself on behalf of a group can be explained with reference to social identity processes. According to the social identity approach, when a person's sense of self is defined by a particular group membership, a social identity becomes salient (i.e., psychologically operative). A salient social identity leads to the depersonalization of the self (Turner, 1982). Then, rather than defining themselves as unique individuals (i.e., in terms of personal identities), individuals define themselves in group-based terms, seeing themselves as more similar to other in-group members (and more different from out-group members). In these circumstances individuals are motivated to achieve and/or maintain a positive sense of self (Tajfel & Turner, 1979) and hence are more likely to cooperate with other group members to promote the collective interests of the group (Ellemers, de Gilder, & van den Heuvel, 1998; Haslam, Powell, & Turner, 2000; Kramer & Brewer, 1984; Turner, 1987; Tyler & Blader, 2000; van Knippenberg & Ellemers, 2003). In this way, the effectiveness of organizations (and the groups within them) is intimately linked to the salience of employees' shared social identity (Haslam, 2004; Haslam, Postmes, & Ellemers, 2003).

Whether a social category becomes salient (i.e., psychologically operative) is determined by the principles of fit andperceiv er readiness (Oakes, 1987; Turner, 1985; see also Oakes, Haslam, & Turner, 1994). The fit of a social identity depends on whether a division of individuals (including the self) into groups matches subjectively perceived features of comparative and normative reality. Perceiver readiness, on the other hand, depends on the extent to which a given social identity is available as a pre- existing cognitive resource for employees. In this way, a given social identity is more likely to be salient where employees have a history of acting in terms of a given group membership and it has ongoing meaning as a part of their self-concept (Turner, 1991). In organizational settings, perceiver readiness is typically operationalized through measures of organizational identification (for a discussion see Haslam [2004], pp. 271-274). These attempt to establish the degree to which any given group membership is central, valued and ego-involving for the individual concerned (e.g., see Doosje & Ellemers, 1997).

The present study examined the relationship between identification with an organization and insecure employment. Preliminary exploration of the link between insecure employment, identification and work motivation is provided by the work of Worchel, Rothgerber, Day, Hart, and Butemeyer (1998). These researchers conducted a series of studies to examine the impact of social identity on individual productivity within groups. They argued that two factors should enhance the salience of social identity and, in turn, the productive efforts of individuals. These were:

(a) the extent to which individuals belonged to groups that were explicitly identified as such; and

(b) the extent to which gr\oup members believed that they would be together for an extended period.

Consistent with predictions derived from social identity and self- categorization theories, Worchel et al. expected, and found, that when participants were explicitly referred to as a 'work team' that would stay together rather than simply a 'convenient collection of people' (1998, pp. 392), this led to improved individual performance on group tasks.

Elaborating upon such ideas, Tyler (1999) argued that individuals use their membership of organizational groups to construct a social identity. It follows that the anticipation of ongoing contact with a group should lead to a sense of inclusion or belonging, important to the construction and maintenance of this identity (Manstead, 1997). Indeed, a lack of inclusion or a lack of a sense of belonging is a common theme in the reported experiences of casual and temporary workers (Cook, 2000; Rogers, 1995; Smith & Ewer, 1999). Moreover, Tyler (1999) argued that the extent to which an individual is included in the group connotes respect and that it is this that determines the likelihood of organizational citizenship behaviour (after Organ, 1988). Additionally, Tyler suggested that 'messages of inclusion will be most important with more marginal members of the organization' (1999, pp. 220; see also Smith & Tyler, 1997).

It follows from the above ideas that the negative effects of casualization typically observed in previous studies (e.g., reduced loyalty and effort) might stem from the capacity for casualization to undermine the readiness of an individual to identify with the organization. In order to test this, the present study aimed to examine whether, and how, being assigned to different occupational roles in a team and the anticipation of future interaction with a team would impact on:

(a) identification;

(b) a willingness to engage in both typical and non-typical measures of work motivation; and

(c) responses to a workplace injustice.

Rather than being subject to the type of confounds that would normally accompany an applied field study comparing the responses of individuals actually employed in casual, temporary and permanent positions (e.g., these workers differ not only in terms of security from permanent workers but additionally and importantly in terms of the type of tasks they are asked to perform), we employed a scenario- based design which allows for an experimental manipulation of the specific variables of interest. For this purpose, participants (employees in a government department) were asked to respond to a scenario in which their own role as members of an organizational work team was casual, temporary or permanent and the team either had or did not have a future. As well as allowing us to examine in a controlled setting how the above measures varied as a function of these manipulations, the study also allowed us to examine the possible mediating role of identification and to investigate whether the impact of role on identification was itself mediated by perceived status and security.

Based on the social identity approach outlined above, we hypothesized that those people who were assigned less secure positions in an organization and to work teams without a future would express lower levels of identification, commitment and intended effort and be less motivated as measured by a willingness to engage in extra-role behaviour. We also expected that similar patterns would emerge on nontraditional measures of work motivation including willingness to identify costly errors and to contribute new ideas to work-related projects. In both cases we also expected social identification (with both the work team and the organization as a whole) to mediate these relationships.

As well as this, the study sought to explore the extent to which participants assigned to less secure positions in an organization would be likely:

(a) to comply with instructions, and

(b) to respond collectively to workplace injustice.

If, as Campbell (1996) has suggested, increased casualization is partially driven by a desire for a more compliant workforce, we would expect that casuals would be more likely to comply with instructions from managers and less likely to respond collectively to a workplace injustice. The same prediction also follows from recent work by Kelly (e.g., Kelly & Breinlinger, 1996) and Veenstra and Haslam (2000), which shows that organizational factors that reduce social identification lead to a reduction in employees' willingness to engage in industrial protest and collective action.

Method

Participants and design

A sample of 141 white-collar, public sector employees took part in the study. They were employed in a wide variety of Australian Public Service classifications ranging from clerks (APS3) to senior management (SESl). The majority were employed on a permanent basis (7.7%).2 Women comprised 69% of the sample and the average age was 38 years.

The study had a between-participants design with two independent variables:

(a) role in department (casual/temporary/permanent); and

(b) team life (future/no future).

Participants were given a scenario in which they were told that they had been assigned to either:

(1) a casual role that had no guarantee of ongoing employment at any time;

(2) a temporary role in which they were guaranteed employment for a fixed term; or

(3) a permanent role in which they were guaranteed ongoing employment.

The scenario also indicated either that the work team to which participants had been assigned had a future or did not.

Materials and procedure

Participants were asked to imagine themselves in one of six scenarios that related to the department in which they were currently employed. The text of these read as follows (bracketed terms indicate the wording used in different conditions):

The Department has just finalised a bulk recruitment round of casual, temporary and permanent staff to implement a new grants funding program in 2000. You have been hired from outside the Department to work on a [casual/temporary/permanent] basis. This means [there is no guarantee of employment for you at any time/you are guaranteed employment for the duration of the project/you are guaranteed ongoing employment].

You are currently assigned to Team X which is one of a number of project teams implementing the program.

Team X has funding for a period of one year and once this program has been successfully completed Team X will [undertake a range of similar projects in the future/be disbanded].

Participants then responded to a series of questions on a 7- point Likert-type scale. The first two items measured how secure respondents would feel in the position to which they had been assigned and how much status they thought they would have within their assigned team.

Three items then examined the more traditional measures of work motivation including:

(a) willingness to commit oneself to the work project (commitment);

(b) willingness to invest energy in the project (effort); and

(c) willingness to work additional hours without being paid should the need arise (extra-role behaviour).

Two items related to non-typical measures of work motivation. These asked participants:

(1) how willing they would be to bring a costly mistake to the attention of a manager (error identification); and

(2) how willing they would be to discuss an idea which would save the department a significant amount of time (creativity).

Additionally, the study examined willingness to comply by asking participants how closely they would try to follow instructions given to them by managers. Participants' willingness to respond to injustice was also explored by asking participants how likely, in circumstances where they thought they were being treated unfairly by a manager, they would be to respond by:

(a) trying to ignore the problem and get on with the job (ignore);

(b) raising the issue individually with another manager (individual response);

(c) getting together with other members of their team and bringing the issue to the attention of another manager (collective response); and

(d) contemplating resigning from their job (resign).

Given that it is likely that identification with the various components of an organization will vary (see van Knippenberg & van Schie, 2000), four items measuring organizational and work team identification (Doosje, Ellemers, & Spears, 1995) asked participants:

(1) how strongly they would feel that they were a member of the team;

(2) how pleased they would be to be a member of the team;

(3) how strongly they would feel that they were a member of the department; and

(4) how pleased they would be to be a member of the department.

These identification measures were included at the end of the questionnaire to increase our confidence that any observed differences in identification had arisen from the experimental manipulations and to check that these had remained salient throughout the whole questionnaire.

Demographic information concerning the sex, age, basis of employment and APS classification level of participants was also collected. After completing these responses participants were thanked for their participation and the purpose of the study was explained.

>Table I. Means and F values for dependent measures as a function of role and team life

Results

Missing data

Three participants completed fewer than four items on the questionnaire and were excluded from subsequent analyses. In 20 other cases, missing data were substituted with the median for the sample as a whole on the relevant variable. This left 138 participants in the sample.

Data reduction

Along the lines of previous research (e.g., van Knippenberg & van Schie, 2000) analysis of the responses on the two identification measures indicated that, overall, participants identified with the team more highly than with the organization (Ms = 4.61 and 4.24, respectively), 770,138) = 15.50p < .001. However, as there wereno other effects and the four measures were highly intercorrelated (α = .91) they were aggregated to provide one global measure of organizational identification.3

Analysis of variance

Scores on all dependent variables were submitted to 3 (role) 2 (team life) ANOVAs. Means and F values are presented in Table 1.

Main effects for role were observed on measures of perceived security and status as well as commitment, effort, extra-role behaviour, creativity and identification. Confirming the success of the basic manipulation, participants assigned to casual roles felt less secure than those assigned temporary or permanent roles (Ms = 2.86, 3.65 and 4.82, respectively), F(2,132) = 20.0, p < .001, and also felt they had less status (Ms = 2.96, 3.77 and 4.53, respectively), F(2,132) = 15.6, p < .001. Consistent with predictions, these effects were also mirrored in responses on other measures, with casuals indicating they would be less committed to the project than temporaries and permanents (Ms - 4.60, 5.65 and 5.95, respectively), /7(2,132) = 13.4 p < .001, less willing to invest effort in the project (Ms = 4.95, 5.53 and 6.05, respectively), /<'(2,132) = 8.7 p < .001, and less willing to do work outside regular hours without being paid (Ms = 3.12, 3.79 and 4.84, respectively), F(2,132) = 9.8, p < .001. However, contrary to expectations, there were no significant differences between those assigned to casual, temporary and permanent roles with regard to their level of compliance with a manager's instructions, /7(2,132) = 0.10, p > .05.

With regard to the non-typical measures of work motivation, there were no significant differences between conditions on the measure of error identification, F(2,132) = 2.1, n.s. However, there were differences with regard to how willing participants would be to discuss a novel idea. Specifically, casuals indicated they would be less likely (M = 5.47) to discuss an idea that would save the department a significant amount of time than both temporaries and permanents (Ms = 5.72 and 6.24, respectively), F(2,132) = 3.9, p < .05.

In terms of responding to a workplace injustice, casuals were also more likely to contemplate resigning than their temporary or permanent counterparts when faced with unfair treatment in the workplace (Ms = 3.88, 3.05 and 3-11, respectively), F(2,132) = 3.5,p<.05.

There was one main effect for the second factor (team life) with participants assigned to teams with a future indicating they would be more committed to the project than those who were told it would be disbanded upon completion of the project (Ms = 5.48 and 5.10, respectively), F,91,132) = 4.0 p < .05.

In addition to these main effects, on the measure of participants' willingness to respond collectively to workplace injustice, there was a significant interaction between role and team life/7(2,132) = 4.3, p < .05. Means for this interaction are presented in Figure 1. Analysis of simple effects (t tests with a protected α = .05) indicated that this effect reflected greater willingness to respond to injustice when employees had a permanent role in a team with a future (M = 4.90) than when they either had a permanent role in a team without a future (M = 3.42) or a casual role in a team with a future (M = 4.06).

Mediational analysis

In order to examine the potential mediating roles of status, security and identification in the above main effects, mediational analysis was performed on those measures where role was observed to have an impact on responses (following Baron & Kenny, 1986). In every case, a series of regression equations was performed to examine the way in which the relationship between role and the relevant dependent measures were or were not mediated by identification, security and status. The first analysis examined the relationship between role, identification and status. As can be seen in Figure 2, while there was a significant relationship between employment role and identification (β = 31,p < .001), this became non-significant (β = .05, n.s.) when status was entered into the equation.

Figure I. Willingness to respond collectively to workplace injustice as a function of role and group future.

Figure 2. Mediation of the impact of role on identification by status.

Likewise, the second analysis, which focused oil the relationship between role, identification and security (see Fig. 3), revealed that the significant relationship between employment role and identification (β = .31, p < .001) became non-significant when security was entered into the regression equation (β = .06, n.s.). It should be noted that as social identity can be considered to be both an independent (or mediating variable) and a dependent variable (Doosje, Spears & Ellemers, 2002), we performed a similar series of regression equations as those described above replacing identification with the dependent variables of interest. This was done in order to determine whether status and security also mediated the relationship between the manipulated employment role variable and commitment, effort, extra-role behaviour, creativity and inclination to resign. It appears that while effort and creativity were fully mediated by status and security, status and security only partially mediated the relationship between role and commitment, and role and extra-role behaviour. Additionally, there was no mediation of this form apparent on employees' inclination to resign. For that reason, identification alone was entered into the full regression model below.

Figure 3. Mediation of the impact of role on identification by security.

Given that both security and status mediated the relationship between role and identification, all three of these variables were included in the regression analyses to examine the relationship between role and measures of commitment, effort, extra-role behaviour, inclination to resign and creativity.

Broadly similar patterns emerged on all measures and in each case these were consistent with hypotheses. As Figure 4 indicates, while there was a significant relationship between employment role and commitment (β = .37, p < .001), this became non-significant (β = .12, n.s.) when identification was entered into the equation. Although not represented graphically here, the same was true for measures of effort (βs = .31 and .04, respectively; ps < .001, n.s.), extra-role behaviour (βs = .33 and .16, respectively; ps < .001, n.s.), creativity (βs = .21 and -.06, respectively; ps < .001, n.s.) and inclination to resign (βs = - .18 and -.09, respectively; ps < .05, n.s.). The only variation on this overall pattern was revealed on the measure of creativity (see Fig. 5) in which a direct path (unmediated by identification) was also observed between security and this dependent variable (β = .38, p < .001).

Discussion

This study was designed to provide a controlled test of:

(a) the impact of casualization on organizational outcomes; and

(b) a theoretical model suggesting that such impact is a product of social identification processes.

Consistent with the first of these ideas we found that random assignment of employees to different roles impacted on their willingness to engage in a range of organizational behaviours. In the first instance, those assigned to more casual roles:

(1) appeared less willing to commit to a designated organizational project;

(2) indicated they would invest less effort in their job; and

(3) expressed less willingness to engage in extra-role behaviours

than their temporary or permanent counterparts. When participants expected to remain in the position to which they had been assigned for a set period of time (i.e., at least one year) this effect was attenuated. Those guaranteed tenure, on the other hand (i.e., permanent workers), expressed more enthusiasm for aetivities that would benefit the organization. Moreover, consistent with arguments that organizational calculations often neglect important, yet subtle, discretionary employee behaviours (Campbell, 1996; Solondz, 1995), we also found that casuals were less willing to offer creative insights that would benefit the organization than their more secure counterparts.

Figure 4. Mediation of the impact of role on commitment by identification.

Figure 5. Mediation of the impact of role on creativity by identification.

In order to investigate the distinction between implicit and explicit expectations of a group's future, the life expectancy of the team to which participants were assigned was manipulated. We anticipated that in conditions where participants were told explicitly that the team had a finite life span rather than an enduring one, participants would be less likely to indicate a willingness to exert themselves on behalf of the team. Interestingly, this pattern was only evident with regard to expressions of commitment. Because the term 'commitment' itself implies a relatively long-term attachment, it is possible that participants were concerned about the finality of the project in terms of psychological commitment only, perceiving a 12-month period to be an adequate period in which to invest effort and display extra- role behaviour.

The above results are interesting in providing (to our knowledge) the first experimental evidence that assignment to a casual role has the potential to impact directly on various measures of workplace motivation. Nonetheless, on its own, the link between role and behavioural outcomes essentially replicates the findings of previous correlational studies. Like prior work in the area of job insecurity, these results do not offer an explanation of the psychological processes mediating this relationship. Why does casual standing undermine motivation, and how are its effects brought about?

In seeking to address these questions we developed hypotheses from the social identity approach to workplace motivation (e.g., Ellemers, Kortekaas\, & Ouwerkerk, 1999; Haslam, 2004; Haslam et al., 2000, van Knippenberg, 2000), suggesting that casualization undermines employees' identification with an organizational group- that is, their willingness to internalize relevant work teams as part of the self (Turner, 1982). Consistent -with this idea, mediational analysis revealed that on key outcome measures (commitment, effort, extra-role behaviour, creativity) the effects of role were mediated by social identification, which was itself mediated by security and status (although there was also a direct link between security and creativity).

Intriguingly, these results suggest that perceptions of security and status play an important role in determining the impact of casualization but that this is largely because they themselves are determinants of social identification. Consistent with work by Ellemers, Tyler and others (e.g., Tyler & Blader, 2000), it appears that employees are less likely to define themselves in group-based terms when the groups in question accord them a low-status and precarious role. In order to identify with a group, individuals need first to know whether they are included as part of the group and, secondly, whether they can anticipate some ongoing contact with that group and feel that their membership status is secure. Our findings suggest that when such respect and assurance is not forthcoming, employees are unlikely to engage the self in organizational activities and it is from this failure to engage psychologically that the negative impact of casualization flows.

In this study, more nuanced evidence of this impact emerged on the measure of employees' willingness to respond collectively to workplace injustice. Here an interaction between role and future arose from the fact that the likelihood of such a response was greatest among employees assigned to a permanent role in a team that had a guaranteed future (with willingness being greater in this condition than in those where participants either had a casual role in a team with a future or a permanent role in a team without a future). This suggests that permanent workers (who are ostensibly provided with security of tenure) are sensitive to the need for a collective response to a workplace injustice-presumably because they perceive such injustice as having direct adverse impact on the (collectively defined) self. However, when positions are casualized (i.e., made more insecure) they recoil from the same collective action. This pattern is consistent with the argument that one reason why casualization remains a popular employment practice is that it creates a more passive workforce and shields employers from the impact of collective protest (ACIRRT, 1999; Campbell, 1996; Campbell, 2000b; Haslam, 2004; Smith & Ewer, 1999; Veenstra & Haslam, 2000).

Despite the strength and novelty of these findings, one limitation of the current research is its emphasis on behavioural intentions rather than actual behaviour. Just as it is important to recognize that indications of lower levels of commitment do not necessarily translate into lower levels of performance, it is also important to realize that an expressed intention to bring a costly mistake to the attention of management does not necessarily mean this will occur in practice. For this reason, further research (in which we are currently engaged) needs to incorporate behavioural measures of the variables of interest.

Moreover, it is also important to recognize that the organizational literature discusses and provides evidence of less secure employees who are highly motivated (Allan & Sienko, 1998; Pearce, 1993; van Dyne & Ang, 1998; see also Campbell, 1996; Junor, 1999), and clearly such evidence needs to be reconciled with the present findings. In this regard, the research of Ellemers et al. (1999) is important as it identifies employee choice as a critical variable that can heighten identification overand-above other contextual elements. This means that even where their status and security are low, individuals can feel committed to groups where they feel that they have selected those groups themselves rather than had membership imposed on them (Ellemers et al., 1999, see also Campbell, 1996; Junor, 1999; Smith & Ewer, 1999). A relevant feature of the present research was that our participants had no such choice. Had they been given this, the research of Ellemers et al. (1999) suggests that our results may have been quite different. Nonetheless, we would still argue for the integrity and validity of our findings given that for most people in the contemporary labour force security, status and choice are a distant luxury (Sennett, 1998; Solondz, 1995).

Taken together, the results of this study provide clear support for a theoretical analysis of workplace casualization that attempts to identify the psychological processes that underpin its impact. By objectively imposing differing levels of employment insecurity and explicitly outlining employee expectations, we were able to investigate the relationship between insecure employment roles and organizational outcomes in a more controlled manner than previous studies. Although further research is clearly necessary in order to establish the external validity of what are only scenario-based results, our findings nonetheless suggest that a casual role does not, in and of itself, produce a casual attitude. Rather, it appears that perceptions of insecurity and status bound up with a casual role impact adversely on a willingness to identify with an organization or workgroup and that it is this low level employee identification which, in turn, translates into an unwillingness to engage in pro-organizational behaviour.

As such, the present study reaffirms the utility of a social identity framework for understanding where and why differences between casual, temporary and permanent workers might exist, if at all. Additionally, it provides evidence for the view that while employers who resort to casualization may well benefit from a more compliant, casualized workforce, this strategy may also entail overt and hidden costs for the organization. Put simply, this is because to the extent that casualization restricts organizational identification it also undermines motivation. More insidiously though, the same lack of identification can dampen employees' enthusiasm to contribute to a workplace that is both vibrant and just.

Acknowledgement

The authors acknowledge the contribution made by two anonymous reviewers.

1 Casualization can also be more broadly defined to reflect a qualitative shift in employment arrangements referring to the spread of casual conditions across the employed labour force (Campbell, 1996).

2 The uneven distribution of secure (permanently employed) versus insecurely employed participants across the experimental conditions makes it impossible to incorporate this variable as an additional factor in a 2 x 3 x 2 AHOVA or indeed as a covariate. Ideally we would have equal numbers of workers actually employed on a permanent and casual basis and this is a matter that should be considered in interpreting the data.

3 All four items to measure identification were tested for reliability producing an alpha of .91 as reported. The minimum corrected item-total correlation was .77, suggesting a unitary construct. The two subscales that measured team and organizational identification were also highly correlated (r = .78J, thereby providing justification for a combined measure of identiffication.

References

Allan, P., & Sienko, S. (1998). Job motivations of professional and technical contingent workers: Are they different from permanent workers. Journal of Employment Counseling, 35, 169178.

Ashford, S. J., Lee, C., & Bobko, P. (1989). Content, causes, and consequences of job insecurity: A theory-based measure and substantive test. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 803829.

Australian Bureau of Statistics (1999, July). Labour force Australia. Cat. No. 6203.0. Canberra: Author.

Australian Centre for Industrial Relations Research and Training (1999). Australia at work: Just managing? Sydney: Prentice Hall.

Australian Council of Trade Unions (1999, July). Employment security and working hours-A national survey of current workplace issues: July 1999. Melbourne: Author.

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.

Brosnan, P., & Underbill, E. (1998). Introduction: Precarious employment. Labour & Industry, 8, 1-4.

Burgess, J., Campbell, I. (1998). The nature and dimensions of precarious employment in Australia. Labour and Industry, 8, 5-22.

Campbell, I (1996). The growth of casual employment in Australia: Towards an explanation. In J. Teicher (Ed.), Non-standard employment in Australia and New Zealand (pp. 43-107). Melbourne: National Key Centre in Industrial Relations.

Campbell, I. (2000a). The spreading net: Age and gender in the process of casualisation in Australia.. Journal of Australian Political Economy, 45, 68-99.

Campbell, I. (2000b). Cited in S. Toomey, Casual work gains momentum. Weekend Australian, June 10-11, p. 1.

Cook, M. (2000). High cost of staff cuts. Education Age, March 29, p. 1.

Dawkins, P., & Norris, K. (1990). Casual employment in Australia. Australian Bulletin of Labour, 16, 156-173.

Doosje, B., & Ellemers, N. (1997). Stereotyping under threat: The role of group identification. In R. Spears, P. J. Oakes, N. Ellemers, & S. A. Haslam (Eds.), The social psychology of stereotyping and group life (pp. 257-272). Oxford: Blackwell.

Doosje, B., Ellemers, N., & Spears, R. (1995). Perceived intragroup variability as a function of group status and identification. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31, 410- 436.

Doosje, B., Spears, R., & Ellemers, N. (2002). Social identity asboth cause and effect: The development of group identification in response to anticipated and actual changes in the intergroup status hierarchy. British Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 57-76.

Ellemers, N., de Gilder, D., & van den Heuvel, H. (1998). Career- oriented versus team-oriented commitment and behaviour at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 717-730.

Ellemers, N., Kortekaas, P., & Ouwerkerk, J. (1999). Self- categorization, commitment to the group and social self-esteem as related but distinct aspects of social identity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 22, 123-140

Fogarty, G., & Raatz, K. (1999). Determinants of quality of life of full time, part time, and casual employees. Paper presented to 34th Annual Conference, Australian Psychological Society, Hobart, Australia, September.

Hartley, J., Jacobson, D., Klandermans, B., & van Vuuren, T. (Eds.) (1991). Job insecurity: Coping with jobs at risk. London: Sage.

Haslam, S. A. (2004). Psychology in organizations: The social identity approach. (2nd ed.) London, UK & Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Haslam, S. A., Postmes, T., & Ellemers, N. (2003). More than a metaphor: Organizational identity makes organizational life possible. British Journal of Management, 14, 357269.

Haslam, S. A., Powell, C., & Turner, J. C. (2000). Social identity, self-categorization and work motivation: Rethinking the contribution of the group to positive and sustainable organizational outcomes. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 49, 319-339.

Junor, A. (1998). Permanent part-time work: New family-friendly standard or high intensity cheap skills? Labour & Industry, 8, 77- 95.

Junor, A. (1999). Casuals, choice and coercion: Women's experiences of casual work. Paper presented to Evatt Foundation Casual Work Seminar, November 1999, LHMU Auditorium, Sydney, Australia.

Kelly, C., & Breinlinger, S. (1996). The social psychology of collective action: Identity, injustice and gender. London: Taylor & Francis.

Kramer, R. M., & Brewer, M. B. (1984). Effects of group identity on resource use in situated commons dilemma. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 1044-1057.

Lewis, H. (1990). Part-time work: Trends and issues. Women's Research and Employment Initiatives Program, Department of Employment, Education and Training. Canberra, Australia: AGPS.

Lord, A., & Hartley, J. (1998). Organizational commitment and job insecurity in a changing public service organization. European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, 7, 341-354.

Manstead, A. S. R. (1997). Situations, belongingness, attitudes and culture: Four lessons learned from social psychology. In C. McGarty & S. A. Haslam (Eds.), The message of social psychology: Perspectives on mind in society (pp. 238-251). Oxford: Blackwell.

Micklethwait, J., & Wooldridge, A. (1997). The witch doctors: What the management gurus are saying, why it matters and how to make sense of it. London: Random House.

Oakes, P. J. (1987). The salience of social categories. In J. C. Turner, M. A. Hogg, P. J. Oakes, S. D. Reicher, & M. S. Wetherell, Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory (pp. 117-141). Oxford: Blackwell.

Oakes, P. J., Haslam, S. A., & Turner, J. C. (1994). Stereotyping and social reality. Oxford: Blackwell.

Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington.

Pearce, J. (1993). Toward an organizational behavior of contract laborers: Their psychological involvement and effects on employee coworkers. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 1082-1096.

Pearce, J. (1998). Job insecurity is important, but not for the reasons you might think: The example of contingent workers. In C. L. Cooper D. M. Rousseau (Eds.), Trends in organizational behavior (Vol. 5, pp. 31-46). New York: Wiley.

Purcell, K., Hogarth, T., & Simm, C. (1999). Whose flexibility? The costs and benefits of 'non-standard' working arrangements and contractual relations. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

Rogers, J. K. (1995). Just a temp: Experience and structure of alienation in temporary clerical employment. Work and Occupations, 22, 137-166.

Romeyn, J. (1992). Flexible working time: Part-time and casual employment. Common-wealth Department of Industrial Relations, Industrial Relations Research Monograph, No. 1, Canberra, Australia: AGPS.

Rosenblatt, Z., S Ruvio, A. (1996). A test of multidimensional model of job insecurity: The case of Israeli teachers. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17, 587-605.

Roskies, E., & Louis-Guerin, C. (1990). Job insecurity in managers: Antecedents and consequences. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 11, 345-359.

Sennett, R. (1998). The corrosion of character: The personal consequences of work in the new capitalism. New York: Norton & Co.

Smith, H. J., & Tyler, T. R. (1997). Choosing the right pond: The influence of the status of one's group and one's status in that group on self-esteem and group-oriented behaviours. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 33, 146-170.

Smith, M., & Ewer, P. (1999). Choice and coercion: Women's experiences of casual work. Sydney: Evatt Foundation.

Solondz, K. (1995). The cost of efficiency. In S. Rees G. Rodley (Eds.), The human costs of managerialism: Advocating the recovery of humanity (pp. 211-220). Leichhardt: Pluto Press.

Sverke, M., & Hellgren, J. (2002). The nature of job insecurity: Understanding employment uncertainty on the brink of a new millennium. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 51, 23-42.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33-47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/ Cole.

Turner, J. C. (1982). Towards a cognitive redefinition of the social group. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Social identity and intergroup relations (pp. 15-40). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Turner, J. C. (1985). Social categorization and the self- concept: A social cognitive theory of group behaviour. In E. J. Lawler (Ed.), Advances in group processes (Vol. 2, pp. 77-122). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Turner, J. C. (1987). The analysis of social influence. InJ. C. Turner, M. A. Hogg, P. J. Oakes, S. D. Reicher, & M. S. Wetherell (Eds.), Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory (pp. 68-88). Oxford: Blackwell.

Turner, J. C. (1991). Social influence. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

Turner, J. C, Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self- categorization theory. Oxford: Blackwell.

Tyler, T. R. (1999). Why people co-operate with organizations: An identity-based perspective. In B. M. Staw & R. Sutton (Eds.), Research in organizational behaviour (Vol. 21, pp. 201246). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. (2000). Cooperation in groups: Procedural justice, social identity and behavioral engagement. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press,

van Dyne, L., & Ang, S. (1998). Organizational citizenship behavior of contingent workers in Singapore. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 692-703.

van Knippenberg, D. (2000). Work motivation and performance: A social identity perspective. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 49, 357-371.

van Knippenberg, D., & Ellemers, N. (2003). Social identity and group performance: Identification as the key to collective effort. In S. A. Haslam, D. van Knippenberg, M. Platow, & N. Ellemers (Eds.), Social identity at work: Developing theory for organizational practice (pp. 29-42). New York: Taylor & Francis,

van Knippenberg, D., & van Schie, E. C. M. (2000). Foci and correlates of organizational identification. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73, 137-147.

Veenstra, K., & Haslam, S. A. (2000). Willingness to participate in industrial protest: Exploring social identification in context. British Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 153-172.

Wooden, M., & Hawke, A. (1998). Factors associated with casual employment: Evidence from AWIRS. The Economic and Labour Relations Review, 9, 82-107.

Worchel, S., Rothgerber, H., Day, A., Hart, D., & Butemeyer, J. (1998). Social identity and individual productivity -within groups. British Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 389-413.

Received 28 August 2002; revised version received 30 November 2003

Kristine Veenstra1*, S. Alexander Haslam2 and Katherine J. Reynolds1

1 School of Psychology, The Australian National University, Australia

2 School of Psychology, University of Exeter, UK

* Correspondence should be addressed to Kristine Veenstra, School of Psychology, The Australian National University, Canberra ACT 0200, Australia (e-mail: kris.veenstra@anu.edu.au).

Copyright British Psychological Society Dec 2004

Source: British Journal of Social Psychology, The

More News in this Category