Intraindividual variation in felt job insecurity: exploration of the reciprocal relationship between quantitative and qualitative job insecurity.

Theoretical background: Jahoda’s deprivation theory holds that employment is the core resource, thus when threatened (quantitative job insecurity), other work features become less secure (qualitative job insecurity). On the other hand, it has been shown that changes to work features (qualitative job insecurity) occur more frequently and independently from threats to job loss. Conservation of resources theory (COR) demonstrates how these threats (lower salary, career opportunity, social status etc.) beget employees’ vulnerability − deepening their threats concerning the stability of their employment (Hobfoll et al., 2018). COR theory also suggests reciprocal influences (i.e., loss spirals; Hobfoll, 2001) as due to experiencing initial threats to work resources (e.g., lower salary) employees develop higher threats to work-related resources, including job loss (quantitative job insecurity), which lead to further enhance threats to work resources. Although the defining feature of job insecurity is the subjectively perceived experience, individual differences have been largely neglected and a variable-centred approach is dominantly used. However, decomposing the variance and controlling for between-person differences when exploring processes at the person-level, improves theory, gives more precise predictions, and controls for biases in conclusions regarding the causal patterns (Hamaker et al., 2015; Hoffman & Stawski, 2009). Method: We conducted a three-wave study and surveyed 3694 Belgian employees. Using a random-intercept cross-lagged panel model (RI-CLPM) we investigated the causal associations between quantitative and qualitative job insecurity at the within-person level. Results: Our results confirmed large heterogeneity in the experience of job insecurity; above 60% of the variance in both quantitative and qualitative job insecurity is due to stable between-person differences. When controlled for these differences, we observed consistent within-person associations at each measurement wave. Stability effects were found for quantitative job insecurity; employees who experienced higher than their average threats to job loss at one point in time also experienced higher threats to job loss later in time. In contrast, we found no carry-over effects for qualitative job insecurity. However, the individual's deviation from the expected qualitative job insecurity score was predicted by deviations from their expected score in quantitative job insecurity. Therefore, in line with Jahoda’s deprivation theory, we found that quantitative job insecurity leads over time to qualitative job insecurity, not reverse. Limitations: Although our study controlled for the between-person differences in how persons usually perceive job insecurity (quantitative and qualitative), we assumed that the within-person processes are identical for all individuals (higher than a usual threat to job loss leads to higher than a usual threat to job insecurity, six months later, and vice versa). However, the relationship between quantitative and qualitative job insecurity may be different between groups of individuals who differ according to certain characteristics. This renders further studies to implement profile analysis in the analysis of the relationship between both job insecurity dimensions. Conclusions: Overall, the results at the person level suggest that the experience of quantitative job insecurity is largely dependent on the individual's experience of these threats earlier on, whereas the individual’s experience of qualitative job insecurity is linked with other time-varying factors, such as individual’s higher experience of overall threat of job loss. Relevance to the conference theme: In post-pandemic life, continuous rearrangements in the work environment uncovered that not only quantitative but also qualitative job insecurity cause substantial strain to employees and organizations. Although both dimensions are independent work stressors, they are closely related. Our contribution highlights the importance of a holistic approach when exploring job insecurities, which empowers work towards more efficient solutions to promote employees' health and well-being. Relevant UN SDGs: This research aligned with SGD#3: Good health and well-being and SGD#8: decent work and economic growth.