DIFFERENT TEMPORARY WORK STATUS ...

Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 20, No. 3, Spring 2006 (Ó2005) DOI: 10.1007/s10869-005-9015-0

DIFFERENT TEMPORARY WORK STATUS, DIFFERENT BEHAVIORS IN ORGANIZATION Maria Jose´ Chambel Filipa Castanheira University of Lisbon

ABSTRACT: This study examined the contributions of the psychological contract framework to an understanding of the effects of different work statuses on employees’ behavior. We compared temporary firm workers (n=71) with core workers (n=268) and direct-hire temporary workers (n=149) with core workers (n=42) in two different samples. As expected, temporary firm workers consider that they receive fewer socio-emotional inducements from the organization they work for (opportunities for promotion, career development, long-term employment), but direct-hire temporary workers who succeeded in having their contracts extended had a psychological contract in which socio-emotional components predominated. A psychological contract with a predominance of socio-emotional components was important for organizations because it mediated the influence of work status on civic virtue behaviors on the part of temporary firm workers, and directly and positively influenced these behaviors in direct-hired temporary workers (behaviors as assessed by their supervisors). Contrary to the hypothesis, psychological contract had a direct and positive influence on the in-role behavior of direct-hire temporary workers. The implications of the findings for psychological contract research are discussed. KEY WORDS: psychological contract; temporary workers; organizational citizenship behavior.

INTRODUCTION Currently, organizations face the dilemma of attempting, simultaneously, to increase the flexibility of the labor force and to increase job involvement and commitment by this part of the labor force to the Address correspondence to Maria Jose´ Chambel, Faculty of Psychology and Education, University of Lisbon, Alameda da Universidade, 1649-013 Lisbon, Portugal. E-mail: [email protected] 351 0889-3268/06/0300-0351/0 Ó 2005 Springer Science+Business Media, Inc.

352

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

organization. Faced with the dynamics of the external environment, involving constant and unpredictable change, organizations are forced to adapt rapidly, in terms both of the number of employees and the skills of such employees (Moorman & Harland). This flexibility has been achieved by increasing the number of temporary workers. By so doing, the organization is able to hire or fire employees to match the requirements of the business at any given moment. In addition, it is also thought necessary, in order to secure advantage in a competitive market, for organizations to have employees who are strongly involved with their jobs and committed to the organizations they work for (Lawler, 1993; Meyer & Allen, 1997). The question that this raises is whether it is possible to reconcile a management style that promotes employee involvement and commitment with this need for flexibility achieved through the use of temporary workers. The literature on organizational behavior has pointed to the need to understand the effects of these temporary contracts on the attitudes and behaviors of individuals at work. In accordance with social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) and reciprocity norms (Gouldner, 1960), we can posit that these temporary workers, because they receive fewer inducements from organizations (are not considered for promotion and cannot expect long-term employment), will make a lower contribution to the organization. However, research results have been inconclusive. Pearce (1993) did not find any significant differences in the co-operativeness or affective commitment of contingent and regular engineers and technicians in an aerospace firm. Kidder (1998) observes that temporary nurses perform fewer organizational citizenship behaviors, but when they perceive they have a more relational contract, they are more likely to perform these behaviors. Van Dyne and Ang (1998) observe that ‘‘..when organizations treat contingent workers with respect and do not view them as peripheral, some contingent workers will have high commitment to the organizations, a positive view of their psychological contracts, and will engage in organizational citizenship just like regular employees.’’ (p. 700–701). Moorman and Harland (2002) demonstrated that when temporary workers have high levels of commitment to the client organization and appraise positive actions taken by the client organizations, they increase their citizenship behaviors. These results suggest that formal contracts do not determine employee attitudes or behaviors, making it necessary to study the conditions and effects of these formal contracts on the development of relations between employee and organization, in particular on expectations as to mutual obligations. The literature on the psychological contract has shown the importance of the employee’s notions and perceptions of his obligations to the organization and of its obligations to him (Robinson & Rousseau, 1994; Rousseau, 1995). Irrespective of the formal contract, it is important to understand what it is that individuals consider they obtain

M. J. CHAMBEL AND F. CASTANHEIRA

353

by working for the organization and, consequently, what it is that they are prepared to contribute in return. This research utilized two samples and compared, in the first, core workers with temporary firm workers and, in the second, core workers with direct-hire temporary workers, with similar functions in the same organization. Only by comparing workers with different formal contracts but similar functions in the same company is it possible to discern the influence of the type of contract, the nature of the job or the characteristics of the organization. The results obtained in this research make it possible to understand better the influence of these different types of formal contracts on the development of psychological contracts. Additionally, this research compares the psychological contract of these workers with differing contracts and subsequently analyzes the differences in the behaviors of these workers. Much previous research has compared only the behaviors of employees with different types of formal contracts, with inconclusive results. Accordingly, we believe that analysis of the psychological contract of employees could assist in clarifying this difficulty.

DIFFERENT STATUS, DIFFERENT PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTRACT Two focuses have generally been distinguished in psychological contracts. The first centers essentially on economic interests and the material benefits that the employee expects to receive from his relationship with the organization. The second centers on socio-emotional interests like opportunities for growth, status, loyalty, and identification (Morrison & Robinson, 1997; Anderson & Schalk, 1998). Various current types of formal contract, based on a more contingent relationship, have been thought to favor the development of a new type of psychological contract more focused on economic interests, while permanent employees enjoying a more traditional relationship would tend to develop a psychological contract with more socio-emotional components (Rousseau, 1995; Millward & Hopkins, 1998). This view is open to criticism, firstly, because the focus of the psychological contract, economic or socio-emotional, may in fact be separate dimensions (Rousseau & Tijoriwala, 1996) and also because psychological contracts are generally high on economic focus and vary predominantly in the degree to which they also focus on the socio-emotional components (Rousseau & McLean Parks, 1992). The key issue in understanding the focus of the psychological contract of contingent employees is not high or low positioning on the economic continuum, but rather the relative emphasis on economic versus socioemotional resources (McLean Parks et al., 1998, p. 711). This view is also open to criticism, secondly, because there are many different categories of formal contract within this contingent category, and within each of

354


those categories there are specific gradations. In this research, in the first sample we compared temporary firm workers with core workers. From a social exchange perspective, we would expect that temporary firm workers will adopt a psychological contract with less emphasis on socioemotional resources than on economic ones. These employees are hired by an agency that provides temporary labor to client organizations. The agency provides salary and certain human resource services for these employees. They form perceptions about what they receive in their exchange relationships with their agencies. But they also form perceptions of the way in which they are treated by their client organizations. ‘‘Because it is not uncommon for contingents to work for consecutive months within the same client organization, contingents develop attitudes concerning their client organizations. Such attitudes may be related to work outcomes that are salient to the client organizations’’ (Liden, Wayne, Kraimer, Sparrowe, 2003). Their temporary status causes them to consider that they receive fewer socio-emotional inducements from the organization they work for (opportunities for promotion, career development, long-term employment) than core workers. H1: Temporary firm workers have a psychological contract with less emphasis on socio-emotional resources than on economic ones, when compared with core workers employed in the same organization and with the same function. We can distinguish different types of temporary workers, namely direct-hire temporary workers and temporary firm workers, with different types of effects because they differ in a range of dimensions (McLean Parks et al., 1998). We compared, in the second sample, direct-hire temporary workers with core workers. The difference between these two types of contract resides mainly in their precision, as the former have contracts for a minimum of 6 months but renewable three times and with a maximum duration of 3 years, while the latter have contracts for an indefinite duration. However, we hypothesized that, in other dimensions of these formal contracts, there are parities which would attenuate the effect of this difference on the psychological contract. Specifically, direct-hire temporary workers stay with the organization for a certain period and may succeed in extending it through a new temporary contract or a permanent contract with the organization. From a social exchange perspective, we would expect that direct-hire temporary workers will adopt a psychological contract with greater emphasis on socio-emotional resources than on economic ones. The possibility of extending their employment in the organization causes them to consider that they receive more socio-emotional inducements from the organization they work for (opportunities for


355

promotion, career development, long-term employment), similarly to core workers. H2: The direct-hire temporary workers who may have their employment in the organization extended have a similar psychological contract to core workers.

DIFFERENT PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTRACT, DIFFERENT EMPLOYEE BEHAVIOR Various employee behaviors have been thought to be influenced by the type of psychological contract established with the employing organization. Different types of psychological contract have been associated with differences in the behaviors exhibited towards the organization (Rousseau & Wade-Benzoni, 1995; McLean Parks, Kidder, & Gallagher, 1998). Research has shown that employees who develop a psychological contract in which socio-emotional resources predominate exhibit a greater desire to stay with the organization (Guzzo, Noonan, & Elron, 1994; Robinson & Rousseau, 1994) and a larger number of citizenship behaviors (Robinson & Morrison, 1995; McLean Parks et al., 1998; Millward & Hopkins, 1998). On the basis of social exchange theory (Blau, 1964), we can hypothesize that when temporary firm workers consider that they receive fewer inducements, or fewer socio-emotional than economic resources, they exhibit fewer positive behaviors towards the organization. In accordance with the rule of reciprocity, individuals behave in a contingent manner, that is, in response to the inducements given by others. In a psychological contract with few socio-emotional resources, that is, one in which employees consider that the organization does not offer them personal development, learning opportunities and loyalty, they will respond reciprocally by exhibiting fewer positive behaviors. In this research, we have selected as behavior, organizational citizenship. Organ (1988) defined this behavior as extra-roles that are discretionary, not included in an employee formal job description, not directly recognized by the organizational reward system and which can be viewed as a behavioral indicator of workers’ responses to their employment relationships (Van Dyne & Ang, 1998). Millward and Hopkins (1998) demonstrated that when employees view their relationship as based primarily on economic exchange, they will meet the terms of the agreement and will perform at a minimum required level. When temporary workers consider that the organization offers them fewer inducements, they contribute reciprocally by exhibiting fewer

356


organizational citizenship behaviors (Coyle-Shapiro, 2002). This reciprocity is not observed in relation to behaviors related to a formal job description, because ‘‘...situational constraints may limit an individual’s ability to his/her in-role performance in response to employer treatment (Turnley & Feldman, 1999). Accordingly, we suggest that the influence of the organization’s status on the behavior of its employees is often not direct, but mediated by the influence of the psychological contract. H3: For temporary firm workers, the relationship between the work status and employee’s citizenship behaviors is mediated by psychological contract. H3a: For temporary firm workers, this mediation of the psychological contract in the relationship between work status and the employee’s in-role behaviors is not observed. On the contrary, Millward and Hopkins (1998) demonstrated that when employees view their relationship as based on social exchange, they are more likely to exert extra effort, and perform non-required behaviors. When direct-hire temporary workers view this contract as a way of gaining entrance to the organization, with the opportunity for learning and skills acquisition, they will tend to exhibit organizational citizenship behaviors in a similar way to core workers (Moorman & Harland, 2002), ‘‘...because they trust that their employer will notice the contributions and reciprocate at some time in the future.’’ (Stamper & Van Dyne, 2001, p. 520). H4: For direct-hire temporary workers, the relationship between work status and employee’s in-role behaviors or citizenship behavior is not observed. H4a: For direct-hire temporary workers, the psychological contract has a positive influence on citizenship behavior, but not on in-role behaviors. METHOD Procedure The data collection took place in participants’ companies and they completed a written questionnaire before or after work. Individuals participated in the study voluntarily and all participants were assured that their individual responses would remain confidential. Supervisors, who were all core workers of the organizations, completed surveys in a


357

separate room. Employee and manager surveys were matched via identification numbers on the surveys. Several employees (core workers and temporary firm workers, in the first sample, and core workers and directhire temporary workers, in the second sample) reported to the same supervisor. Workers provided data on their demographic characteristics and psychological contract. Supervisors provided data on their demographic characteristics, employee in-role behavior and organizational citizenship behavior. Sample Research with temporary workers has become increasingly relevant since this workforce occupies a significant percentage of workers in several countries. In Portugal, around 22% of employees were non-permanent, with over 40,000 new temporary employment contracts in recent years (+7.4%) while employment under indefinite duration contracts declined ()1.1%), corresponding to the loss of 27,100 jobs. This trend has significantly accentuated the precariousness of employment in Portugal, which continues to have one of the highest rates of non-permanent employment contracts in the European Union. We selected one company in the industrial sector and a second company in the call-center services sector, first, because the Industrial sector in Portugal accounts for approximately 34.1% of workers, a slight fall (.3%) over the previous year, while the relative importance of the Services sector increased, rising from 52.3% in 2000 to 53.6% in 2002. According to ICEP, the call-center sector (from which our second sample was drawn) is expected to create around 40,000–60,000 new jobs up to 2010, constituting an area of strong expansion in the Portuguese labor market. Second, both sectors are increasingly making use of temporary employment. Respondents In both samples, the workers, irrespective of whether they had temporary or permanent status, had the same working conditions, carrying out similar tasks during an identical working day and at the same place, and were managed by the same supervisor. In addition, despite the fact that the first sample was composed of manufacturing workers and the second of call center operators, the work carried by both can be described as simple and routine, with low task variety, low task complexity and consequential low utilization of qualifications. Moreover, in both these contexts, the workers exercise ‘‘low influence on one’s own work in terms of work-related resources such as job control, not only over work

358


pace, but also with regard to planning and organizing one’s own work.’’ (Grebner et al., 2003, p. 342). First Sample This sample comprised 339 employees at an electronics component factory, of whom 71 (21%) were temporary firm workers and 268 (79%) were core workers. All respondents who had been working in the organization for less than 6 months were eliminated, and their average tenure in the company was 36 months (SD = 28.68). Of these participants, 104 (30.7%) were male and their average age was 29.83 years (SD = 2.09). A total of 38 supervisors of these workers participated in the survey, of whom 17 (44.7%) were male, with an average age of 30.8 years (SD = 4.11). These supervisors had been employed by the company for an average of 33.51 months (SD = 6.42) and had been managing these workers for an average of 16.14 months (SD = 12.88). The overall response rate represented 78.2% of the total workers. Second Sample A total of 191 call center workers from a telecommunications enterprise, of whom 149 (78%) were direct-hire temporary workers and 42 (22%) were core workers, participated in this research. All respondents who had been employed by the company for less than 6 months were eliminated, and the sample had an average tenure in the company of 33 months (SD = 16.68). Of these participants, 45 (24%) were male and their average age was 26.89 years (SD = 5.57). A total of 22 supervisors of these workers participated in the survey, of whom 16 were female (73%), with an average age of 28.85 years (SD = 4.67). These supervisors had been employed by the company for an average of 23.51 months (SD = 9.53) and had been managing these workers for an average of 14.36 months (SD = 7.88). The overall response rate represented 81.3% of the total workers. Measures We obtained information on employment status from organizational records (0 = temporary firm workers, 1 = core workers, in first sample; 0 = direct hire temporary workers, 1 = core workers, in second sample). Psychological Contract The Psychological Contract was assessed using an adaptation of the Millward and Hopkins scale (1998), selecting the items evaluating the focus of the contract: 8 items for the economic focus (a = .75 and a = .74,


359

first and second sample, respectively) and 12 items for the socio-emotional focus (a = .85 and a = .87, first and second samples, respectively). An example of an economic focus item is ‘‘I do this job for the money’’; an example of a socio-emotional focus item is ‘‘I hope to develop my skills in this company’’. We obtained a measure of the psychological contract by establishing a ratio between these two focuses, socio-emotional and economic. The final value reflects the proportion of socio-emotional components in relation to economic ones. Values higher than 1 reflect a psychological contract with a predominance of socio-emotional components. In-Role Behaviors We measured these behaviors using an adaptation of the Williams and Anderson scale (1991). The measure contained 6 items with responses on a 1–5 scale ranging from Almost Never to Almost Always. An example of an item is ‘‘He/she carries out the tasks that are given to him/ her’’. These behaviors were evaluated by the worker’s supervisor and high scores indicate the presence of these behaviors. Organizational Citizenship Behaviors We followed the recommendation of Van Dyne, Graham and Dienesch (1994) to focus on the specific type of organizational citizenship behavior relevant to the focus of the research. As the psychological contract consists of a set of beliefs about the mutual obligations of the individual and the organization, we posited that its influence would be reflected in the organizational citizenship behaviors related to the organization rather than those related to supervisors or colleagues. Of the five dimensions of organizational citizenship behavior identified by Organ (1988), we posited that civic virtue (behavior by the individual indicating that he/she participates responsibly and is involved in the life of the organization) was the dimension most directly related with the organization (Robinson & Morrison, 1995). We used the items of this dimension used by Morrison (1994). The measure contained 6 items with responses on a 1–5 scale ranging from Almost Never to Almost Always. An example of an item is ‘‘He/she thinks about what is best for the company’’. Civic virtue behaviors were evaluated by the worker’s supervisor and high scores indicate the presence of these behaviors. Control Variables Age, gender and organizational tenure can be related to work status (Stamper & Van Dyne, 2001) or to OCB (Morrisson, 1994). Accordingly, we controlled for tenure (in months), and demographic variables (gender was coded ‘‘0’’ if the respondent was male and ‘‘1’’ if the respondent was female; age, in years).

360


RESULTS Descriptive statistics and zero-order correlations for all variables are shown in Table 1(a) and (b). Correlations show that workers with psychological contracts with a predominance of socio-emotional components tend to exhibit higher levels of in-role behaviors and civic virtue behavior evaluations. As expected, in the first sample (Table 1(a)) work status was related with psychological contract (r = .167, p < .001) and in second sample (Table 1(b)) work status was not related with psychological contract (r = .038, ns). We tested our hypotheses using two methods. First, in order to assess the differences existing between these two groups of workers (core and temporary), we performed one-way ANOVA analyses. The results provide support for Hypothesis 1, showing that there are differences in the psychological contracts of these two groups of workers in sample 1, and support Hypothesis 2, showing that there are no differences in the psychological contracts of these two groups of workers in sample 2 (Table 2(a) and (b)). Second, we perform hierarchical multiple regression analysis (Cohen & Cohen, 1983). Hierarchical regression results (using one-tailed

Table 1 Descriptive Statistics and Zero-Order Correlations for All Variables (N = 339) for (a) Sample (N=339) and (b) Sample (N=191) Mean

SD

1

(a) Sample 1 1. Tenure (months) 36 28.68 2. Age (years) 29.83 2.09 .436a 3. Gender .69 .48 .057 4. Work Status .79 .41 .327a 5. Psychological Contract 1.63 .97 .077 6. In Role Behaviors 4.57 .56 .122b 7. Civic Virtue Behaviors 3.19 1.15 .213a

2

.048 .053 .126b .154a .161a

(b) Sample 2 1. Tenure (months) 33 16.68 2. Age (years) 26.89 5.57 .041 3. Gender .76 .43 .133 .067 4. Work Status .22 .42 .458b ).017 5. Psychological Contract 2.06 1.37 .074 .138 6. In Role Behaviors 3.99 1.07 .031 .038 7. Civic Virtue Behaviors 3.36 .99 .039 .076 a

3

4

.072 .036 .026 .041

.167a .064 .279a

5

6

.146a (.85) .384a .049

7

(.95)

.148b .076 .038 .090 ).011 .408a (.85) .094 .198a .575a (.95) .148b

Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed); bCorrelation is significant at the .05 level (2-tailed); Alpha coefficients are between parenthesis in diagonal.


361

Table 2 One-Way ANOVA Analyses of Psychological Contract, Civic Virtue and In-Role Behaviors Between (a) Core Workers (1) and Temporary Firm Workers (0); (b) Core Workers (1) and Direct-Hire Temporary Workers (0) Status

Mean

S.D.

t

1 0 1 0 1 0

1.72 1.31 3.35 2.56 4.58 4.50

1.04 .58 1.17 .77 .51 .73

3.92***

1 0 1 0 1 0

2.20 2.01 3.53 3.31 3.98 4.00

1.57 1.31 1.05 1.00 1.26 1.03

(a) Psychological Contract Civic Virtue In-Role Behaviors (b) Psychological Contract Civic Virtue In-Role Behaviors

6.77*** .95(ns)

.48(ns) 1.24(ns) ).14(ns)

1 = Core workers; 0 = Temporary firm workers ; 0 = Direct-hire workers; *** p < .001.

significance tests) are summarized in Table 3. After controlling for age, gender and tenure, the addition of work status at step two yielded a significant and a positive beta for psychological contract (b = .167, p < .05) for sample 1, but not for sample 2 (b = .016, ns). Therefore, hypotheses 1 and 2 were supported. Hypothesis 3 posited that for temporary firm workers, the relationship between work status and organizational citizenship behaviors would Table 3 Main Effect Results for the Work Status–Psychological Contract Relation Outcome

Psychological Contract (Sample 1)

Psychological Contract (Sample 2)

b

b

Predictors Step 1 Gender Age Tenure Step 2 Work Satus F R-Sq Change *** p < .001; **p < .01.

).00 .05 .12

.02 ).04 .06

1.34 .004

.167* 8.037* .028

.066 .129 .059

.065 .129 .052

1.59 .017

.016 1.19 .017

362


be mediated by psychological contract. This hypothesis was tested following the procedures outlined by Baron and Kenny (1986). They suggest that to test for mediation, the following three conditions should be satisfied. First, the independent variable (work status) and the proposed mediator (psychological contract) must each be significantly related to the dependent variable (citizenship behaviors). An examination of the correlation matrix (cf. Table 1(a)) reveals that organizational status and psychological contract are significantly correlated with the dependent variable (r = .279, p < .001 and r = .384, p < .001, respectively), satisfying the first condition. Second, the independent variable must be significantly related to the proposed mediator. An examination of the correlation matrix reveals that work status is significantly correlated with psychological contract (r = .167, p < .001), thereby also satisfying the second condition. Finally, the relationship between the independent variable and the dependent variable should be significantly weaker (partial mediation) or non-significant (full mediation) when the proposed mediator is included in the regression equation. The results of these analyses are presented in Table 4. In the first step, the control variables and work status were entered into the regression equations (b = .289, p < .001). In the second step, the mediating variable (psychological contract) was entered into the regression equations. When psychological contract was entered into the regression equation for organizational civic virtue, it was a significant predictor (b = .346, p < .001) and the work status was a significantly weaker predictor (b = .234, p < .001). Thus, psychological contract Table 4 Mediation Effect Results for the Psychological Contract in Relationship between Organizational Status and Civic Virtue Behaviors, for Temporary Firm Workers Outcome

Civic Virtue Behaviors

Predictors Step 1 Gender Age Tenure Work status Step 2 Psychological Contract F R-Sq Change * p < .05; ***p < .001.

b

.052 .028 .048 .289***

.067 .044 .059 .234***

25.492*** .080

.346*** 34.851*** .195


363

partially mediated the relationship between work status and civic virtue behavior, thereby partially supporting Hypothesis 3. Hypothesis 3a posited that for temporary firm workers, this mediated relationship is not observed for in-role behaviors. The independent variable (work status) and the proposed mediator (psychological contract) must each be significantly related to the dependent variable (in role behaviors). An examination of the correlation matrix (cf. Table 1(a)) reveals that work status is not significantly correlated with the dependent variable (r=.064, ns), therefore supporting this hypothesis. Hierarchical regression results (using one-tailed significance tests) are summarized in Table 5. After controlling for age, gender and tenure, the addition of work status did not yield a significant beta for employees in role behaviors or citizenship behavior (b = ).059, ns and b = .088, ns, respectively), thereby supporting hypothesis 4. The addition of psychological contract at step two yielded a significant beta for employee’s in-role behaviors (b = .414, p < .001) or citizenship behavior (b = .168, p < .05). Support for Hypothesis 4a was therefore mixed, showing an effect of psychological contract on in-role behaviors and on citizenship behaviors for direct hire temporary workers. DISCUSSION The results of this research contribute to our understanding of the effects of a common phenomenon in today’s organizations, the use of Table 5 Main Effect Results for the Relationship Between Psychological Contract-Civic Virtue Behaviors and Psychological Contract-in-Role Behaviors, for Direct Hire Temporary Workers Outcome

In Role Behaviors

Civic Virtue Behaviors

b

b

Predictors Step 1 Gender Age Tenure Work status Step 2 Psychological Contract F R-Sq Change * p < .05; *** p < .001.

.062 .029 .024 ).059

.336 .006

.038 ).027 .021

.414*** 7.23*** .174

.122 .060 .016 .088

1.159 .020

.115 .062 ).034

.168* 2.006* .054

364


different formal contracts with employees. We found that temporary contracts did not inevitably have negative effects on employees’ psychological contracts; different temporary workers had different psychological contracts. We found that developing a psychological contract with the company with a predominance of socio-emotional components is important to employees’ behaviors. The results of this study provide support for our first and second hypotheses. Firstly, we found support for the hypothesis that temporary firm workers tend to consider that the organization offers them fewer inducements, and develop a psychological contract with less emphasis on socio-emotional components than on economic ones. On the other hand, we found support for the hypothesis that where temporary workers develop a lasting relationship with the organization and have the possibility of converting their contract, as is the case with direct-hire temporary workers, they develop a similar psychological contract to core workers, in which socio-emotional components predominate. These results show, firstly, that it is possible to develop a psychological contract with temporary workers similar to that of core employees. Secondly, they show that this is more likely to occur with temporary workers who are able to convert their contract with the organization, either by renewal of their temporary contract or by obtaining a permanent position. Because this is one of the few empirical studies that have tested the influence on different temporary workers of psychological contract, further research is needed to confirm these results. We found support for our hypothesis that having employees with a psychological contract with a predominance of socio-emotional components compared with economic ones is fundamental to the organization because this partially mediates the relationship between organizational status and organizational citizenship behavior for temporary firm workers (Hypothesis 3) and directly and positively influences organizational citizenship behavior for direct-hired temporary workers (Hypothesis 4a). These results help us to understand the inconclusive results obtained when only the behaviors of workers with different status are compared. These behaviors are influenced by the employees’ psychological contract which, as we saw earlier, is not always influenced by the employees’ work status, or at least is not determined by it. However, from our results, for temporary firm workers, this contract has a direct influence on organizational citizenship behaviors. Further research is needed to analyze the relationship between these variables, work status, psychological contract and behaviors, in order to enable us to understand better this mediating role that the psychological contract may have. Additionally, research with temporary workers has shown the importance of including volition in the contract in order to clarify more precisely the effect of work status on the psychological contract and of the


365

latter on employee behaviors (Ellingson, Gruys & Sackett, 1998;Van Dyne and Ang, 1998; Stamper & Van Dyne, 2001). We consider it crucial to include this variable in future research. Finally, contrary to what we supposed, for direct-hire temporary workers, the psychological contract was shown to have a positive influence not only on organizational citizenship behaviors, but also on in-role behaviors. We can posit that this occurred because the study sample was based on employees of a call-center, where the characteristics of the work and organization allow workers to fluctuate in performance in response to the treatment they receive from the organization. Alternatively, the correlation of .58 (q