Cited by 32Job Satisfaction and Organizational BehaviorEmployee Performance and ManagementEmployment and Welfare Studies

Contract moderation effects on temporary agency workers’ affective organizational commitment and perceptions of support

Open access
Giunchi, Marianna, Chambel, Maria José, Ghislieri, Chiara·2015·Personnel Review

Abstract

Purpose: – Temporary agency workers (TAWs) have a double employment relationship: one with the agency that hires them with a formal contract, either temporary or permanent; and another with the client organization where they actually perform their work. As the social-exchange theory assumes that TAWs respond to the support they receive from both organizations with affective commitment toward the respective organization. The purpose of this paper is to propose that the type of contract with the agency moderates these relationships, specifically that permanent TAWs present a stronger relationship between perceived organizational support (POS) and affective organizational commitment (AOC) toward the agency and, to the contrary, that temporary TAWs show a greater relationship between POS and AOC toward the client. Design/methodology/approach: – The hypotheses were tested with a sample of 522 Portuguese TAWs, of which 265 were temporaries and 257 were permanents. Data were collected with a self-report questionnaire and analyzed with multigroup analysis using the AMOS program. Findings: – The authors verified that POS from both the employment agency and the client organization were related to the TAWs’ affective commitment to each respective organization. Furthermore, the relationship between POS from the employment agency and the affective commitment to this organization was stronger in permanent than in temporary TAWs. However, contrary to the expectations, the contract with the agency did not moderate the relationship with client organizations: temporary and permanent TAWs showed a similar relationship between POS from this organization and their affective commitment toward it. Practical implications: – These findings show the important organizational role of both the employment agency and the client in supporting their TAWs and attending to the type of contract they have with the employment agency. Originality/value: – This paper contributes to the analysis of the TAWs’ double employment relationship and highlights the role of the agency contract in the explanation of these relationships.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1108/pr-03-2014-0061

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Temporary agency workers develop a double work relationship: one with the temporary agency and another with the client-company.

    “TAWs develop a double work relationship: one pertaining to the entity with whom they have a formal contract (i.e., the temporary agency) and another with the people with whom they actually work (i.e., the client-company) [17,18]”

    From The Temporary Agency Worker’s Motivation Profile Analysis (2021) · cites this paper as [17]

    The indexed copy contains repository metadata, including the paper’s title and a PDF listing (Abstract section, no page number), but no passage describing workers’ relationships with the agency and client-company. Searches for the claimed double relationship and for agency/client support found no substantive paper text, so the claim cannot be checked against this copy. (LLM, conf=0.72)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Giunchi, M., Chambel, M. J., & Ghislieri, C.
Affiliations
University of Turin (IT)
Venue
Personnel Review
Publisher
Emerald
Published
2015-02-02
Volume
44
Issue
1
Pages
22-38
ISSN
0048-3486 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2084063441
Cited by
32
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 2
FWCI
7.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Personnel Review (publishedVersion)
  • Institutional Research Information System University of Turin (University of Turin) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • HAL (submittedVersion)
  • HAL Portal Artxiker (Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (India)) (submittedVersion)
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 agency workers, affective commitment, perceived organizational support, contract types, employment agencies, client organizations, social exchange theory, moderating effect

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