Keywords

1 Introduction

Our economy is rapidly evolving and transforming. Large scale structural changes seem to occur at ever increasing speed. The automation movement of the 1980s was followed by a vast wave of mergers and restructurings of organisations, alongside phenomena such as downsizing and the privatisation of state-owned companies. These changes often resulted in massive job losses coupled with an increase in temporary work contracts, and hence, many employees fear that their jobs are ‘on the line’. The recent economic crisis resulted in additional downsizings and dismissals and suggests that economic turbulence might very well remain part of the foreseeable future. For some authors, the absence of job security has even become characteristic of the present economic order: for them, the hour of glory of the permanent job has passed (Bridges 1994).

Scientific interest in the phenomenon of job insecurity was triggered about 30 years ago, when Greenhalgh and Rosenblatt (1984) published their authoritative article, ‘Job insecurity: Toward Conceptual Clarity’. It was the start of an extensive research tradition which has flourished particularly after 2000. In their introduction to a special issue on ‘job insecurity’ in 1999, Klandermans and van Vuuren still expressed their surprise over the lack of research on the subject. Consultation of the Web of Knowledge reveals that, in the meantime, their call has been granted. In the past 20 years, about 300 articles with ‘job insecurity’ in the title and about 1,000 contributions with job insecurity as the main theme have been published. This probably reflects the fact that job insecurity is now widely recognized as one of the key psychosocial risks at the workplace, next to aspects such as workload, (lack of) control, role stressors and poor interpersonal relationships at work, leading to psychological and physical harm (see e.g. Leka and Jain 2010).

The abundance of studies on job insecurity notwithstanding, the current chapter focusses on the relationship of job insecurity with employees’ health and well-being. More specifically, the following main outlines are made: First, we highlight the definition and prevalence of perceived job insecurity. Second, we give an overview of the negative consequences of job insecurity for individual health and well-being, with specific attention to longitudinal evidence and theoretical explanations. Third, we present variables that may buffer the job insecurity – outcomes relationship. This chapter concludes with some practical suggestions: what can be done to deal with the consequences of job insecurity?

2 What Is ‘Job Insecurity’?

‘Job insecurity’ is characterized by the perception of being threatened by job loss (Mohr 2000), and may be defined as an overall concern about the continued existence of the job in the future (van Vuuren 1990). Scholars seem to agree on the following characteristics of job insecurity. First, job insecurity is a subjective experience, resulting from a person’s perception and interpretation of the actual work environment. Accordingly, the same objective situation may result in different interpretations of uncertainty for different employees (Klandermans and van Vuuren 1999; Sverke et al. 2002). Some employees may fear dismissal, while there is no ‘objective’ reason for them to lose their job. Others may feel quite confident about keeping their job, while there is a real possibility that they will be dismissed. In general, however, the subjective evaluation of one’s own chances of being dismissed correlates well with the objective possibility of job loss: perceived job insecurity is a subjective reflection of the objective labour market position (and opportunities) of a specific worker (e.g., De Witte 2005). Next, job insecurity implies uncertainty about the future: one does not know whether one will retain or lose the current job. This is in contrast with a dismissed employee who knows for certain that the job is lost and hence can prepare for the future (e.g., by looking for employment). Employees who feel insecure cannot prepare themselves to the same extent, because they do not know if they should take action or not. Finally, definitions regarding job insecurity also contain references to its involuntary nature (Sverke and Hellgren 2002). Job insecurity implies a discrepancy between what people wish for (certainty about the future of their current employment) and what people ‘get’ (the perception that the current job is threatened).

Different types of job insecurity can be distinguished. First, some authors distinguish between the (cognitive) possibility of job loss (‘probability’; ‘I think that I will become unemployed’) and the affective experience thereof (‘I am scared that I will become unemployed’) (Borg 1992). Research however suggests that there is strong correlation between both aspects, and, accordingly, homogeneous scales containing both cognitive and affective items have been presented (e.g., Vander Elst et al. 2014a). Second, a distinction can be made between quantitative and qualitative job insecurity (Hellgren et al. 1999). Quantitative job insecurity concerns the retention (or loss) of one’s job as such: workers are uncertain whether they will be able to keep their job or not. Qualitative job insecurity refers to uncertainty about retaining valued job aspects, and thus concerns uncertainty about the quality of the job in the future. Workers experiencing qualitative job insecurity are insecure about aspects such as working conditions, wage, career opportunities and their colleagues or supervisor in the future. In this chapter we will mainly concentrate on quantitative job insecurity, which concerns the perception that one may lose one’s current job, as most research has focussed on this dimension. Some scholars also assume that particularly this type of job insecurity has important implications for employees’ health and well-being (Greenhalgh and Rosenblatt 1984). Note, however, that both kinds of insecurity tend to be strongly correlated: losing the job obviously also implies losing valued aspects of that job (e.g., De Witte et al. 2010; Hellgren et al. 1999).

3 How Many Employees, and Who Feels Insecure?

The media often provide varying percentages regarding the extent of job insecurity. The diversity in figures is caused by differences in measurements and by the fact that one often reports results of convenience samples instead of representative surveys. Erlinghagen (2008) based his findings on the ‘European Social Survey’, carried out in 2004 and 2005 in 17 European countries. In these countries, 14 % of respondents did not agree with the cognitive item ‘My job is secure’. The percentage of insecure employees varied between countries, from 9 % in Austria to slightly more than 26 % in France. Anderson and Pontusson (2007) reported results of the data of the 1997 ‘International Social Survey Program’, collected in 15 OECD countries. About 20–25 % of the respondents responded positively to the affective item ‘Do you worry about the possibilities of losing your job?’ Here too, the percentage varied between countries, from 11 % in Norway to no less than 54 % in Spain. Overall, job insecurity is thus a reality for a (sometimes rather large) ‘minority’ of the working population. Note, however, that such a minority mounts to a rather sizeable number of workers in absolute figures.

The perception of job insecurity is linked to the level (and the evolution) of unemployment in a country (Brochu and Zhou 2009), which partly accounts for some of the variation in job insecurity between countries mentioned earlier. Within countries, differences are due to sectorial and organisational variables, such as working in the government sector (higher protection, thus low job insecurity), restructurings and/or dismissals in the actual organisation in the past (more dismissals, more job insecurity), and the percentage of temporary employees in the company (higher percentage, more job insecurity) (De Cuyper et al. 2009b; Muñoz de Bustillo and de Pedraza 2010). Finally, job insecurity is also associated with demographical and work-related variables determining the labour market opportunities of an employee. Research in various European countries shows that blue-collar workers, low skilled employees and employees in industry perceive more job insecurity (e.g., Erlinghagen 2008; Näswall and De Witte 2003). This is not surprising, as these categories of employees have a greater (‘objective’) chance of being dismissed. Additionally, job insecurity is also associated with the employment contract: temporary employees experience more job insecurity than employees on a permanent contract (Klandermans et al. 2010).

4 Health and Well-Being Outcomes of Job Insecurity

Job insecurity is part of the many psychosocial hazards at work: aspects of the design and management of work and its social and organizational context, that have the potential for causing psychological or physical harm (Leka and Jain 2010). Job insecurity is therefore considered as a work stressor in the literature (Ashford et al. 1989). Work stressors are demanding aspects of the job with negative consequences for (somatic) health and (psychological) well-being of individual employees. An overview of the available literature provides a long list of the negative outcomes of job insecurity (e.g., De Witte 1999, 2005; Ferrie 2001; Probst 2008; Sverke and Hellgren 2002). Job insecurity has, for instance, been associated with lower mental well-being and physical health complaints, both on a general (e.g., anxiety, high blood pressure) and work-related level (e.g., reduced job satisfaction, absenteeism).

The increase in studies on job insecurity and its outcomes allowed to perform two meta-analyses. In 2002, Sverke et al. published a meta-analysis of 72 studies. In 2008, their study was followed by the meta-analysis of Cheng and Chan covering 133 studies. Table 7.1 contains an overview of the results of both studies concerning individual health and well-being.

Table 7.1 Overview of the results of two meta analyses on the associations of job insecurity (meta correlations)
Full size table

The results show that job insecurity correlates negatively with job satisfaction, mental well-being and physical health. This underlines the stressful nature of job insecurity: it is harmful to be insecure about the future of one’s job. Furthermore, Table 7.1 reveals some interesting different results for different types of outcomes. Job insecurity shows the strongest correlation with an indicator of well-being at work: job satisfaction. In the study of Sverke et al. (2002), the meta-correlation for job satisfaction is almost twice the size of that of mental well-being. The meta-correlation for physical health is lower than the meta-correlation for mental well-being. This suggests a gradient in the relationships of job insecurity with outcomes. Job insecurity is strongly linked to reduced well-being at work (e.g., job satisfaction). The influence on aspects of health and well-being outside the workplace is slightly more limited, although still substantial. Finally, it is notable that, although all meta-correlations increased in size in the study of Cheng and Chan (2008) compared to the study of Sverke et al. (2002), the gradation of the associations is the same in both studies: the strongest association is reported with job satisfaction, the weakest with physical health.

The list of negative consequences of job insecurity for health and well-being can be completed by aspects not included in the meta-analyses. A typical example of a mental stress reaction is the reduction of mental well-being, as measured by the General Health Questionnaire-12 (GHQ-12; Goldberg 1972). Research documents lower scores on the GHQ-12 for those who feel insecure (e.g., De Witte 1999). Research equally shows that job insecurity is associated with a multitude of specific mental stress reactions, such as anxiety (Burchell 2009), irritation (Otto et al. 2011), depressive symptoms, hostility and loneliness (Kalil et al. 2010). Furthermore, a consistently lower score for life satisfaction has been found in several studies (Green 2011; Sora et al. 2011). Mental stress reactions can also be operationalized in terms of work-related well-being. Job insecurity is linked to less favourable scores on the three dimensions of burnout (Dekker and Schaufeli 1995; De Witte et al. 2010; Kausto et al. 2005) and to reduced work engagement (De Cuyper et al. 2008; Mauno et al. 2005). This suggests that job insecurity can be energy draining (e.g., more emotional exhaustion (as part of the burnout syndrome) and less vigour (as part of work engagement)), and seems to affect the identification of employees with their jobs (e.g., more depersonalisation (as part of the burnout syndrome) and less dedication (as part of work engagement)). Job insecurity is also associated with specific measurements of work-related strain (Näswall et al. 2005) and with higher levels of need for recovery (Kinnunen et al. 2010; Schreurs et al. 2010).

In the results discussed above, a distinction was made between well-being at work and well-being outside work. This distinction relates to Warr’s distinction between ‘context specific’ (e.g., at work) and ‘context free’ mental well-being (Warr 2007). This distinction raises the issue of the relationship between both dimensions and job insecurity. It could be that job insecurity is only related to ‘context free’ well-being because of its association with well-being at work. In this view, job insecurity ‘only’ directly affects work-related well-being (e.g., job satisfaction or burnout), which in turns impacts upon broader and more general dimensions of well-being (the ‘spill over’ hypothesis; e.g., Spector 1997), suggesting a full mediation of the job insecurity – general well-being relationship through work-related well-being. Research however disconfirms the full meditational view. Job insecurity is still negatively related to life satisfaction and feelings of happiness, after statistically controlling for job satisfaction (De Witte 2003). A more extensive test of Handaja and De Witte (2007) led to the same conclusion. Taken together, these findings suggest that job insecurity is not only problematic for well-being at work (e.g., job satisfaction), but crosses job borders by also having a direct negative impact on well-being outside of work.

A typical example of a physical stress reaction is (self-reported) somatic health. Laszlo et al. (2010) found a consistently negative association with somatic health in 16 countries. Correlations with psychosomatic symptoms (Burchell 2009; Mohr 2000) and sleeping disorders (Virtanen et al. 2011) have also been reported. Job insecurity is also associated with various physiological variables, such as increased blood pressure and an increase in catecholamines (Kalil et al. 2010) and cholesterol (Muntaner et al. 1998). Not surprisingly given these findings, job insecurity is also associated with health problems varying from increased receptiveness for infections such as colds and flu (Mohren et al. 2003), to calcification of the arteries (Muntaner et al. 1998), an increased possibility of heart disease (Siegrist 1995) and non-fatal heart attacks in the short run (Lee et al. 2004).

Finally, correlations are also found between job insecurity and an increase in the use of medicines such as antidepressants (Rugulies et al. 2010) and of smoking (Mohren et al. 2003). These aspects relate to behavioural stress reactions. In addition, job insecurity is linked to an increase in the consultation of doctors (Roskies and Louis-Guerin 1990) and complicates the rehabilitation of back injuries (Thali et al. 1994). Job insecurity is positively associated with absenteeism at the workplace (De Witte et al. 2010; D’Souza et al. 2006): insecure employees more often call in sick. Interestingly, research shows that the increase in absenteeism during downsizing is (partially) due to the increase in job insecurity caused by the restructuring process (Kivimaki et al. 2000).

Note that the consequences of job insecurity are not limited to the individual. Research shows that job insecurity also influences family life and the work-home interference. Scandinavian studies show that job insecurity is associated with work-family conflicts (Richter et al. 2010). Burnout due to job insecurity can even be transferred to the partner (Westman et al. 2001) and may complicate marital life (Barling and McEwen 1992). Job insecurity felt by parents also influences their children. It exerts a negative influence on their children’s attitudes towards employment in general, as well as their school achievements (Barling et al. 1998, 1999).

Job insecurity research mostly focuses on the quantitative variant of job insecurity, defined as the perceived probability of losing one’s job and the worries related to that perception. Qualitative job insecurity on the other hand, referring to the perceived probability and fear of losing valued job features (Hellgren et al. 1999; see above), has been investigated much less frequently. Recently, however, some studies linking qualitative job insecurity to health and well-being have been reported. The distinction between quantitative and qualitative job insecurity evokes the question as to which job insecurity type is more problematic. Greenhalgh and Rosenblatt (1984) assume that quantitative job insecurity is more problematic than qualitative job insecurity, because with quantitative job insecurity there is more to lose: there is the risk of losing the entire job and not just a few important aspects. The job may become less attractive on a qualitative level, but it does not disappear altogether. This leads to the assumption of quantitative job insecurity leading to stronger negative consequences. Other authors (e.g., De Cuyper and De Witte 2008) state that quantitative and qualitative job insecurity can both cause perceptions of psychological contract breach, e.g., job insecurity may present a violation of the employer’s obligations to provide job security in return for employees’ efforts and loyalty. This leads to the hypothesis of equal strength of relationships with poor well-being. The strength of relationships could also be conditional upon the specific outcome under consideration (Hellgren et al. 1999): quantitative job insecurity may more strongly relate to (general) mental well-being, possibly because one risks to lose the job as such; whereas qualitative job insecurity could be more important for specific (e.g., less encompassing) aspects of well-being such as job related attitudes, as the job as such will not be lost. This argument mirrors the first view, stating that quantitative job insecurity might have a stronger impact.

The results of the comparison of both kinds of job insecurity thus far are however equivocal. In their study, Hellgren et al. (1999) indeed found that quantitative job insecurity predicted physical health and psychological well-being, whereas qualitative job insecurity primarily predicted job satisfaction and turnover intentions. Although both types were associated with psychological well-being in the study of Roskies and Louis-Guerin (1990), job satisfaction was more strongly related to qualitative than to quantitative job insecurity. Handaja and De Witte (2007) used a more differentiated measurement of qualitative job insecurity. They also found that qualitative job insecurity explained more variance in job satisfaction and psychological well-being than quantitative job insecurity. Finally, the most encompassing study analysed a wide range of outcome variables, such as job satisfaction, the three burnout dimensions, psychological well-being, psychosomatic complaints, absenteeism and visits to the doctor (De Witte et al. 2010). This time, the results did not produce clear differences. Both types of job insecurity – independent of one another – were associated to almost all outcome variables in the same way. This leads to the global conclusion that both types of job insecurity seem to be problematic for health and well-being, even though the relative importance of both types may depend on the operationalisation and the specific sample under study.

5 Is Job Insecurity Causing Lower Levels of Health and Well-Being?

Thus far, we have been discussing correlations between job insecurity and various health and well-being outcomes, with the implicit assumption that job insecurity affects these outcomes. Longitudinal research supports this view, and enables to conclude that job insecurity indeed causes the consequences discussed earlier. Studies show that job insecurity influences psychological well-being and somatic health at a later stage, suggesting a causal impact (Ferrie et al. 2005; Kalil et al. 2010; Virtanen et al. 2011). A variety of phenomena, such as job satisfaction (Probst and Brubaker 2001), the use of antidepressants (Rugulies et al. 2010), being sensitive to infections such as colds and flu (Mohren et al. 2003) and conflicts between work and family (Richter et al. 2010) can be predicted by perceived job insecurity in the past. Some studies furthermore suggests that the influence of job insecurity on well-being (‘normal causation’) is more important than the influence of well-being on perceived job insecurity (‘reversed causation’), while other studies highlight the possibility of reciprocal causation: job insecurity causes detrimental health and well-being rather than the other way round, or there is a mutual influence between job insecurity and well-being, respectively. The study by Hellgren and Sverke (2003) illustrates the idea of normal causation. The authors compared various causal models. Only the model in which job insecurity influences psychological well-being at a later stage was confirmed. The model assuming the opposite impact was refuted. Concerning reciprocal causation, De Cuyper et al. (2012) recently established reciprocal cross-lagged relationships between job insecurity and emotional exhaustion. Similarly, Kinnunen et al. (2003) found that job insecurity lowered self-esteem in the long run, while lower self-esteem eventually also increased job insecurity. These studies show that a negative spiral can develop, whereby perceived job insecurity and its consequences strengthen one another over time.

Another conclusion from longitudinal research is that (continuous) job insecurity is more problematic for well-being than actual dismissal. Dekker and Schaufeli (1995) surveyed employees who were insecure about their job at Time 1. Two months later a group was informed about their dismissal, while the fate of the second group remained uncertain. Surprisingly, the well-being of the dismissed group increased after they were given clarity about the future of their job. The well-being of the second group remained low. This suggests that employees prefer certainty above uncertainty, even in the case of certainty about job loss. The reason may relate to regained feelings of control over one’s own life and over the future (see below). The informed workers could start preparing to deal with their dismissal and to look for a new job.

Research finally also shows that job insecurity is a chronic stressor (Van Vuuren 1990; Mauno et al. 2001). Uncertainty about one’s job is a rather enduring experience, and is harmful to health and well-being in the short as well as in the long run. The continuous experience of uncertainty has a cumulative impact on future well-being. Those who, in the longitudinal research of Van Vuuren (1990), felt uncertain at both time points, showed the lowest level of well-being.

6 Why Is Job Insecurity Detrimental? Looking for Explanations

The negative consequences of job insecurity can be explained based on diverse, but complementary theoretical perspectives. Quantitative job insecurity refers to the perception that employees may lose their current job. It is not surprising that this perception is problematic, given the importance of work. In our society, work represents the key to social participation and integration. These notions are central to Jahoda’s latent deprivation model (Jahoda 1982). In this model, Jahoda maps the functions of work, such as earning an income, acquiring status and establishing social contacts outside the family circle, enabling to structure time and to develop oneself individually and socially. These functions satisfy important needs. Being threatened with job loss potentially leads to the anticipated frustration of these work needs. Besides loss of earnings, job loss also implies the loss of for instance the opportunity to develop one’s talents, to gain status and to develop social contacts, which cumulates in the threat of being excluded socially. Job insecurity thus threatens the future employment of employees, and therefore also the satisfaction of fundamental needs fulfilled by work.

The notion of need frustration as explanation is further developed in Self-Determination Theory (SDT; Ryan and Deci 2000; Van den Broeck et al. 2008). This theory suggests that job insecurity is problematic, because it frustrates the three basic psychological needs postulated by SDT (Vander Elst et al. 2012). The need for autonomy represents individuals’ inherent desire to experience a general sense of choice and volition. It refers to having authorship of one’s actions and to feel psychologically free. The need for belongingness refers to the propensity to feel connected to others, and to experience intense, meaningful social relations. The need for competence refers to individuals’ inclination to influence the environment and to obtain desired outcomes. Job insecurity can frustrate these basic needs. It implies an involuntary and unwanted change concerning the continuity of the job (frustration of autonomy). Additionally, job insecurity implies the possible loss of (one’s own position in) the team, together with the risk of increasing social tensions through, for example, the increase of competition and rumours (frustration of belongingness). Job insecure employees also experience difficulties undertaking action to oppose job insecurity, as this phenomenon is characterized by the lack of clarity about the future (competence frustration). In their study, Vander Elst et al. (2012) indeed showed that the frustration of these three basic psychological needs mediates the association of job insecurity with burnout and work engagement.

Additionally, two factors central to job stress research play a role: predictability and controllability. Job insecurity first of all implies unpredictability: for the person involved, it is unclear what the future holds. This makes it difficult to react adequately, because it is unclear if one should undertake action or not. In his ‘vitamin’ model, Warr shows that unpredictability (as part of the broader dimension ‘environmental clarity’) reduces psychological well-being (Warr 2007). Besides unpredictability, uncontrollability is probably even more important. Job insecurity is problematic because it implies powerlessness or a lack of control (Vander Elst et al. 2011, 2014b). Employees who are insecure about keeping their job or valued job characteristics can usually do very little to decrease their insecurity. Mostly, they have no influence on the decision whether they will be dismissed or not, or whether they will keep valued job characteristics, as such decision are typically taken on a higher, transnational management level. Research indicates that feelings of powerlessness erode mental and physical health (Warr 2007). Vander Elst et al. (2011), for instance, found empirical evidence for the hypothesis that a lack of control mediates the relationship between quantitative job insecurity, and job satisfaction and mental health. This may explain the increase in well-being of employees who (after prolonged insecurity) obtain certainty about their dismissal (Dekker and Schaufeli 1995). For them the future finally becomes controllable, because at last they know where they stand.

The negative consequences of job insecurity can also be explained by the experience of a breach of the (relational) psychological contract (De Cuyper and De Witte 2006, 2008). The psychological contract refers to ‘the idiosyncratic set of reciprocal expectations held by employees concerning their obligations and their entitlements’ (McLean Parks et al. 1998, p. 698). The relational psychological contract, typical for employees with a long tenure in a company, focuses upon socio-emotional exchange between employees and employer. Typical elements are job security in exchange for loyalty and dedication. Job insecure employees experience a breach of their psychological contract: they feel that their loyalty and dedication is not rewarded, because they do not experience job security. A breach of the psychological contract has negative consequences for the well-being of the employee involved, because he/she feels treated unfairly and betrayed. De Cuyper and De Witte (2006) found empirical evidence for this hypothesis: the relationship between job insecurity, and job satisfaction and life satisfaction was mediated by the perception that their relational psychological contract was breached.

7 But It Depends: Moderators Can Buffer the Consequences of Job Insecurity

Job stress research is traditionally looking for variables that moderate the association between a stressor and its consequences. Specific variables can indeed weaken (or boost) the impact of job insecurity on health and well-being (Greenhalgh and Rosenblatt 1984). Because job insecurity is determined by the economic situation, feelings of job insecurity can often not be avoided. Therefore, it becomes important to find variables that can buffer the consequences of job insecurity. Likewise, it seems wise to identify variables that might strengthen its impact. These moderators offer important practical clues for the development of interventions (Sverke and Hellgren 2002): buffers need to be strengthened, whereas boosting factors need to be avoided or reduced.

A first set of moderators concerns demographic and work-related background variables, such as gender, age and occupational position. These demographics are of course difficult to influence. Policy makers and HR professionals can however use these findings to develop their policies, as these moderators evidence that some categories of employees can experience job insecurity in a different way. Sverke et al. (2002) demonstrated in their meta-analysis that the association between job insecurity and various consequences varies according to occupational position: blue-collar workers experience job insecurity in a more detrimental way than white-collar workers. This suggests that blue-collar workers are ‘hit twice’ by job insecurity. Because of their weaker position on the labour market, they experience more job insecurity (a higher average level), whereas they are also more strongly affected by the same level of job insecurity (stronger correlation with stress reactions). Furthermore, in their meta-analysis, Cheng and Chan (2008) found moderation by age. Job insecurity is more strongly associated with turnover intentions among the young workforce, as compared to their older peers. Younger employees probably perceive more opportunities for themselves on the labour market. As a consequence, they can more rapidly change jobs when experiencing job insecurity. For older workers, job insecurity is more strongly related to decreased psychological well-being and reduced physical health. This suggests that older employees constitute a risk group: they may experience fewer possibilities of escaping job insecurity and are more burdened by it than younger people. No differences according to gender were found: men and women experience job insecurity in the same way.

A relatively important amount of research on job insecurity focussed on temporary employees. Temporary employment concerns ‘dependent employment of limited duration’ (OECD 2002, p. 170), for example in the form of temporary or fixed-term contracts. Studies on the relationship between temporary employment and employees’ health and well-being are inconclusive (for reviews, see e.g., De Cuyper et al. 2008; Virtanen et al. 2005). The results from a large scale European project (Guest et al. 2010) for example demonstrate little differences between temporary and permanent workers regarding work related attitudes and well-being. Although temporary employees are much more insecure about their job than permanent employees (see above), job insecurity among temporary employees is only weakly associated (if associated at all) with negative consequences (Bernhard-Oettel et al. 2005; De Cuyper et al. 2010; De Witte and Näswall 2003). This association is much stronger among employees with a permanent contract. Temporary employees are thus more insecure, but this does not translate into negative consequences. A possible explanation relates to the psychological contract of temporary employees (De Cuyper and De Witte 2008): temporary employees do not expect job security from their employer. As stated above, job security belongs to the (relational) psychological contract of permanent employees. Job insecurity breaches the expectations of the permanent employees, leading to negative consequences. Temporary employees know that job insecurity is a part of their labour relation: job insecurity does not breach their psychological contract and is therefore less problematic.

Causal attributions and coping styles have also been investigated as moderators of the job insecurity – well-being relationship. Attributing the cause of job insecurity to an internal, uncontrollable factor (e.g., one’s age) strengthens the association between job insecurity and feelings of depression, psychosomatic complaints or job dissatisfaction (van Vuuren 1990), since employees think that nothing can be done. This finding fits the view that uncontrollability explains the detrimental consequences of job insecurity. Coping styles are also relevant. Employees using avoidance as coping strategy to handle stress report more psychological complaints when insecure about their jobs (van Vuuren et al. 1991). These findings suggest that internal incontrollable attributions and avoidance coping styles boost the impact of job insecurity, and should be avoided.

A moderator that attracted increasingly more research over the past few years, is perceived employability, which concerns the assessment of the employee of his chance of finding another job (Berntson and Marklund 2007). Job insecurity and perceived employability are partly comparable: Employability and job insecurity are both subjective perceptions regarding the future. Job insecurity, however, is about the future of the current job, whereas perceived employability concerns future jobs, with the current employer as well as other employers (De Cuyper and De Witte 2011). Perceived employability is often mentioned as a buffer of the relationship between job insecurity and its consequences (De Cuyper et al. 2008): job insecurity is not as detrimental when employees perceive alternative employment opportunities. Perceived employability conveys that employees experience control over their fate and future, which reduces the effects of a job stressor – in this case, job insecurity (Silla et al. 2009). Various studies support the interaction between job insecurity and perceived employability in relation to well-being (Berntson et al. 2010; Green 2011). Improving the availability of alternative employment options and employees’ employment skills may thus become important, as they may directly reduce job insecurity and/or can buffer its aversive consequences. Researchers should however be wary of advancing perceived employability as the ultimate answer to all problems associated with job insecurity. The reason is that perceived employability may trigger unintended side effects. For example, De Cuyper et al. (2009a) established that job insecurity may relate to workplace bullying, particularly among those who feel highly employable. Our conclusion is that perceived employability is important, but should be monitored carefully. The latter leads us to suggestions for practice.

8 What Can We Do? Suggestions for Practice

The findings in this chapter emphasize that job insecurity is a problematic phenomenon. As a consequence, psychologists and social scientists need to develop interventions to fight its negative effects. Some suggestions have already been discussed elsewhere and relate to, for example, organisational justice, social support and the need to restore the effort-reward imbalance (De Witte 2005). In this chapter, some additional ideas will be presented. The finding that job insecurity is problematic because it implies a lack of control, provides a practical point of departure. Two routes could be followed in developing interventions. First of all, job insecurity could be directly reduced by interventions that may increase experienced control at work. The focus of such interventions is thus on control as an antecedent of job (in)security. Secondly, interventions increasing control may also act as buffers of the relationship between job insecurity and its consequences. These kind of interventions focus on control as a moderator. Three variables are relevant in pursuing both routes: communication, participation and employability.

First of all, one needs to reduce insecurity as such. One of the causes of insecurity is the lack of communication about what will happen in the future. Research shows that explicit communication about future organisational plans is effective in reducing insecurity (Huang et al. 2012; Schweiger and DeNisi 1991; Vander Elst et al. 2010). Open and timely communication not only increases the predictability and controllability of what is to come, it also contributes to the experience that one is valued and respected by company management. Participation in decision making about the future of the organization also reduces insecurity (Probst 2005). Also in this way employees increase their control over the situation, while participation in the decision making process also increases the predictability of events. As indicated above, perceived employability implies the experience of control over the future. Research shows that this perception effectively directly reduces perceived job insecurity (De Cuyper et al. 2008, 2012). Organizations can thus work in a preventive way by strengthening relevant skills of their employees, which will lead to fewer problems in an eventual search for a new job.

However, reducing job insecurity as such is not always possible. A certain amount of insecurity about the future seems unavoidable in economically turbulent times. Therefore, one also needs to develop interventions to buffer the negative consequences of job insecurity. Here too, the same three variables can play a role. Increasing communication, participation and employability will increase the employee’s perceptions of control, which in turn buffers stress reactions (Folkman 1984). Vander Elst et al. (2011) analysed the moderating role of communication and participation. Organizational participation buffered the negative relationship between job insecurity and work engagement, whereas communication did not. Jiang and Probst (2013), however, found that higher levels of positive organizational communication practices buffered the association of job insecurity with job satisfaction and health complaints. The moderating role of perceived employability is also confirmed in empirical research (Green 2011; Kang et al. 2012; Kirves et al. 2011). As mentioned earlier, a higher level of employability did buffer the negative relationship between job insecurity and life satisfaction in the study of Silla and colleagues (2009).

These findings can be used to generate specific interventions. Schweiger and Denisi (1991) developed and tested a communication program in the context of a merger. Insecurity and its negative outcomes, resulting from the announcement of the merger, decreased among participants of a realistic communication intervention (compared to a control group), both in the short and the long term. This communication program aimed at providing frequent, honest and relevant information about the merger, fair treatment of the employees, and responding to employees’ questions and concerns. These aims were realized by means of a merger newsletter, a telephone hotline and weekly meetings with the manager.

Probst (2005) presents participative decision making as a cost-effective intervention in job insecure work situations: It can be implemented at a relatively low cost and may have additional financial benefits resulting from positive outcomes, such as increased health, job satisfaction and reduced absenteeism. Intervention studies demonstrate the benefits of organizational participation for employee well-being. Mikkelsen et al. (2000), for instance, reported a long-term effect of a ‘direct participatory organizational intervention’ on work-related stress. The intervention was directed at identifying and solving work problems in order to stimulate employee health and organizational performance. It started with a seminar in which employees were asked to think about points of improvements and actions in their work environment. This resulted in seven work groups, including employees and supervisors, which discussed a specific work point and formulated remediable actions throughout nine meetings. In dialogue with a consultant, the management and the union representatives, these work groups suggested specific actions plans. A similar intervention could be developed when dealing with job insecurity.

Interventions may also attempt to increase the workers’ employability. Some interventions may focus upon reducing employee perceptions of insecurity. For example, managers may help employees to define a career path within the organization as a way to increase internal employability. Other interventions may focus upon reducing the negative impact of felt job insecurity by providing an alternative in the form of employability. For example, access to job counselling may help to emotionally deal with career and job insecurity concerns, and it may provide workers with up to date knowledge about the labour market and a prospect on alternative employment opportunities. Likewise, the organization may provide general training that is transferable across jobs and organizations. These are all critical to sustain employability. Moreover, such interventions have a positive side effect for organizations: they signal that an organization takes up social responsibility (Kang et al. 2012).

Finally, macro level interventions are also needed. In this volume, Berglund in Chap. 9 states that the expenditures of governments on labour market policies has the potential to reduce perceived job insecurity. Based on the ECWS data from 2010, he shows that investments in social protection (e.g. increasing unemployment benefits) is associated with reduced levels of job insecurity. Next to such ‘passive’ labour market policies, also ‘active’ labour market policies seem relevant. Adapting the human capital of the unemployed to labour market demands by providing vocational training and stimulating job search efforts also decrease perceptions of job insecurity, as well as creating and/or subsidizing news jobs. An interesting finding is that government investments in labour market policies also reduce the impact of job insecurity on mental well-being, suggesting that macro levels interventions also function as buffers in the job insecurity – strain relationship discussed in this chapter.

9 Conclusion

In this chapter, the consequences of job insecurity for health and well-being have been discussed, and some explanations and possible solutions have been mentioned. A lot still needs to be studied, such as the impact of job insecurity on health behaviours (and performance), and the differential impact of various operationalisations of the job insecurity concept (e.g., quantitative versus qualitative job insecurity). One of the issues that have been underdeveloped relates to cross-national comparisons: are the consequences of job insecurity for health and well-being identical in all countries, and what variables on the country level (e.g., culture, legislation and social security system) account for possible differences?Footnote 1 We also need to deepen job insecurity research by further developing and testing theoretical explanations of job insecurity and its consequences. The use of more complex longitudinal research designs in which, for instance, multi-mediational paths are tested, and of diary studies seems warranted in this regard. Finally, there is a clear need to develop a coherent set of interventions to reduce job insecurity and its detrimental consequences. The search of theoretical explanations for the negative consequences of job insecurity and for buffers of the insecurity-outcome relationship is important in this regard, as these findings will offer a point of departure for the design of such interventions. These interventions need to be tested and evaluated empirically too, to assess their effectiveness. Job insecurity is the consequence of actual economic transformations, and will not disappear soon. Developing and testing interventions to cope with this phenomenon therefore becomes one of the core tasks of scientists in this field.