They don’t want to be temporaries: Similarities between temps and core workers
Abstract
This study investigated the impact of employment status (temporary/regular) on the employee–organization relationship in samples from two firms employing both temps (n = 234) and regular or core (n = 204) workers. Temps and regular workers held similar beliefs regarding the nature of their employment relationship. However, among those temps for whom temporary work was their preferred status, the employment relationship was less socioemotional and more economic than was the case for other workers. When these temps preferred regular employment, their relationships were high socioemotional and low economic, comparable with that of core workers. A employee–organization relationship high on socioemotional terms was positively related to satisfaction with the organization, an attitude which in turn mediated the relationship between employment relationship and employees' performance and civic virtue behaviors (behaviors as assessed by their supervisors). Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Through LPA, the study achieved more complex analyses and more enlightening conclusions than studies focused only on the dichotomy between voluntary and involuntary reasons.
“Through this method we achieved more complex analyses and reached more enlightening conclusions than the studies that have focused only on the dichotomy between voluntary and involuntary reasons to be in a temporary work arrangement [14]”
From The Temporary Agency Worker’s Motivation Profile Analysis (2021) · cites this paper as [14]
Cites
Psychological Contracts in Organizations: Understanding Written and Unwritten Agreements
Rousseau, D. (1995) · doi:10.4135/9781452231594 · Cited by 3,453 · see citing works
Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Kraimer, M. L., & Sparrowe, R. T. (2003) · Journal of Organizational Behavior · doi:10.1002/job.208 · Cited by 284 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The Temporary Agency Worker’s Motivation Profile Analysis
Sobral, F., Chambel, M. J., & Castanheira, F. (2021) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph18136779 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
“Through this method we achieved more complex analyses and reached more enlightening conclusions than the studies that have focused only on the dichotomy between voluntary and involuntary reasons to be in a temporary work arrangement [14]—including our detection of moderate profiles with a strong presence of identified…”
BackgroundMethodSelf-citation
- Authors
- Chambel, M. J., & Castanheira, F.
- Affiliations
- University of Lisbon (PT)
- ORCID
- Castanheira, Filipa
- Venue
- Journal of Organizational Behavior
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2007-07-12
- Volume
- 28
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 943-959
- ISSN
- 0894-3796 (ISSN-L)
- 1099-1379
- OpenAlex
- W1997719626
- Cited by
- 70
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 9
- FWCI
- 7.75
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Organizational Behavior (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Job Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior
- Social Sciences › Human Factors and Ergonomics › Employee Performance and Management
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Employment and Welfare Studies
- Keywords
- temporary employment, employment status, employee-organization relationship, economic commitment, job satisfaction, organizational citizenship behavior, employee performance
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
