Disparity in occupational training and career planning between contingent and permanent employees
Abstract
In modern work life, a common structure of staffing comprises a core of permanent employees and a fluctuating number of contingent workers. We examined the degree to which participation in occupational training and career planning differed between these two groups. The study cohort comprised 5127 hospital employees (96% full time), of whom 4211 were permanent, 677 had a contingent contract, and 239 were contingent at baseline but got a permanent job during the 4-year follow-up period. Results show that contingent employees participated less in occupational training and career planning than permanent employees. The difference remained significant even after 6 years' employment in the hospital. Those contingent employees who became permanently employed did not differ from the permanent employees in occupational training and career planning. These trends in human resource allocation support the human capital theory. They also point to an unintended mechanism potentially increasing inequalities in the workforce, arising from the different human capital investments depending on the employment status.
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?
Unmet growth-related career expectations have been associated with stress, burnout, and turnover intentions.
“Overall, the findings from the study are not surprising considering that 'unmet growth-related career expectations, in turn, have been associated with stress, burnout, and turnover intentions' (Virtanen et al., 2003: 31).”
From Smart technology, artificial intelligence, robotics, and algorithms (STARA): employees' perceptions of our future workplace (2018) · cites this paper as Virtanen et al., 2003
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Brougham, D., & Haar, J. (2018) · Journal of Management & Organization · doi:10.1017/jmo.2016.55 · Cited by 1,117 · see citing works
- Authors
- Virtanen, M., Kivimäki, M., Virtanen, P., Elovainio, M., & Vahtera, J.
- Affiliations
- Finnish Institute of Occupational Health (FI)
- University of Tampere (FI)
- University of Helsinki (FI)
- Venue
- European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2003-01
- Volume
- 12
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 19-36
- ISSN
- 1359-432X (ISSN-L)
- 1464-0643
- OpenAlex
- W2060087068
- Cited by
- 72
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 7
- FWCI
- 1.96
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology (publishedVersion)
- UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Human Resource Development and Performance Evaluation
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Human Resource and Talent Management
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Employment and Welfare Studies
- Keywords
- contingent workers, permanent employment, occupational training, career planning, human capital theory, human capital investment, hospital staff, employment status, training participation
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