The impact of the employee-organization relationship on temporary employees' performance and attitude: testing a Singaporean sample

Abstract

Following the framework proposed by Tsui et al. (1997), this research paper examines the impact of the employee-organization relationship on temporary employees' job performance, turnover intention, overall job satisfaction, affective commitment, perception of fairness and perception of work options.Data were collected from 191 temporary employees from seven employment agencies in Singapore. Analyses conducted revealed that employee responses do vary under the four types of relationship (quasi-spot contract, under-investment, mutual investment and over-investment). In general, both mutual investment and over-investment relationships were associated with higher levels of performance and more favourable attitudes than either the under-investment or quasi-spot contract.Speci cally, temporary employees under the mutual investment and over-investment relationships have better job performance, a higher level of affective commitment to the agency, improved overall job satisfaction, higher perception of fairness, higher perception of work options and lower turnover intentions. Furthermore, these nding were obtained even after controlling for the effects of company tenure and job level on employee performance and attitudes.The results highlight the importance of employee-organization relationships in eliciting the desired temporary employee outcomes. Practical implications were drawn for human resource practitioners and employment agencies on how best to manage temporary employees. Some limitations and suggestions for future research were discussed.

Balancing psychological contracts: Validation of a typology

“…Shore and Barksdale (1998), as well as Tsui et al (1997), found that psychological contracts with mutual high obligations are positively related to organizational commitment, organizational support, trust, and perceptions of fairness, and negatively related to turnover intention. These findings were replicated by Koh and Yer (2000) in a sample of temporary employees, and are in line with studies following the tradition of Contribution-Inducement Theory (March and Simon 1958), Adams' Equity Theory (e.g., Geurts, Schaufeli and Rutte 1999),…”

“…Furthermore, the content of the psychological contract proved crucial in shaping employees' responses on organizational commitment, job-related as well as general well-being (Beard and Edwards 1995;Millward and Brewerton 2000). Most studies, however, did not take into account issues related to balance or imbalance in perceived exchange of obligations and entitlements, notable exceptions being the studies conducted by Shore and Barksdale (1998), Tsui, Pearce, Porter and Tripoli (1997) and Koh and Yer (2000). The fact that the issue of exchange balance has received little attention is surprising, given that the psychological contract is rooted in the tradition of social exchange theories (Rousseau 1995;Anderson and Schalk 1998;Guest 1998;Conway 1999;Coyle Shapiro and Kessler 2000).…”

Strategic use of Temporary Employment Contracts as Real Options

“…While much research has been undertaken in the area of temporary employment (Abraham, 1988;Barry and Crant, 1990;Koh and Yer, 2000;Mangum et al, 1985;Voudouris, 2004), research into the area of temporary employment contracts is scarce (Burgess and Connell,8 2006; Davis-Blake and Uzzi, 1993;Ellingson et al, 1998;Mitlacher, 2006) and still at an early stage (Connelly, 2004). McLean Parks et al (1998 have suggested that empirical investigations are in short supply and advised on the need for a broader framework for distinguishing between or analysing different types of employment arrangements and relationships.…”

The changing world of the temporary worker: the potential HR impact of legislation

“…Nevertheless, an implication for human resource managers was that the induction of temporary workers needed to be carried out by the direct employer (Druker and Stanworth, 2004;Feldman et al, 1994;Feldman, Doerpinghaus and Turnley, 1995;Foote and Folta, 2002;Koh and Yer, 2000;Ward et al, 2001). Druker and Stanworth (2004) suggested that employers of agency workers wanted to conduct the minimum amount of induction as possible and that employers perceived a 'good temp' as someone who could be 'fitted in' quickly.…”

“…Performance evaluation and monitoring was also considered as an implication for the use of temporary workers (Koh and Yer, 2000;Smith, 1988). Smith (1988) suggested that three steps should be taken to effectively evaluate performance.…”