Rethinking Human Resource Strategies: A Shift in the Treatment of Contingent Workers

Abstract

Contingent workers fulfill valuable organizational needs and have functioned as knowledge resources for organizations. Despite their contributions, the literature suggests that a difference in treatment exists between contingent and standard workers in terms of onboarding, pay for performance, and training and development practices within organizations. This paper presents an empirically testable framework that argues for a shift in HR strategies that will allow for equality in treatment between standard and contingent workers within organizations.

Are there major differences in the attitudes and service quality of standard and seasonal employees? An empirical examination and implications for practice

“…These results are not surprising given the organizational context; seasonal workers performed routine tasks, had less pleasant work stations, could be terminated more easily, and had no union protections. Considering the overall job conditions measure was (Eisenberger & Stinglhamber, 2011;Kalleberg, 2003;Shore & Shore, 1995;Zimmerman, Gavrilova-Aguilar, & Cullum, 2013).…”

“…Like previous research showing organizations typically use different organizational entry processes for standard and nonstandard employees (Kalleberg, 2003;Zimmerman et al, 2013), the state agency in this study used different recruitment, selection, and orientation processes for the two types of workers. Hence, the POS experienced by the seasonal employees may have been in line with their expectations and met their conditions for social exchange (Blau, 1964).…”

Client organizations and the management of professional agency work: The case of English health and social care

“…However, the suggestion that agency workers can and should be managed this way by clients has been questioned within the literature. In any context, there is a risk that the relative neglect of agency workers implied by a market‐based HR configuration may exaggerate the risks of substandard performance (Koene & van Riemsdijk, ; Zimmerman et al, ). Feldman et al (, p. 54) note, for example, the problems that arise when agency workers become “discouraged by the dehumanising and impersonal way that they are treated on the job.”…”

“…Hence, there are reasons to suggest that an "acquisition" employment mode coupled with a market-based HR configuration may be suboptimal and, on balance, client organizations are better served by making their own investments in the management of agency workers (Zimmerman et al, 2013). Indeed, a growing number of studies highlight the importance for agency worker commitment of perceived organizational support and the adoption of HR practices similar to those applied to permanent staff (Torka, 2011;Torka & Schyns, 2010, p. 1307Liden, Wayne, Kraimer, & Sparrowe, 2003;Coyle-Shapiro, Morrow, & Kessler, 2006).…”

Temporary employment and voice behavior: the role of self‐efficacy and political savvy

“…Nonstandard jobs are commonly stigmatized as inferior jobs, and nonstandard workers are labeled as less capable and of lower status in the society (Wang, Cooke and Lin 2016;Xu 2009). In other words, nonstandard workers in Asian countries not only suffer from a lower level of job security and poorer working conditions (ILO 2015;Qian, Zheng and Zhou 2017), but also live under the impact of social stigma and are treated with bias (Boyce et al 2007;Zimmerman, Gavrilova-Aguilar and Cullum 2013). Such social stigma may harm an individual's self-concept and threaten the central aspect of his or her psychological functioning (Rosenberg 1979;Yang 2012).…”