691574

research-article2017
JOMXXX10.1177/0149206317691574Journal of ManagementShoss / Job Insecurity

Journal of Management
Vol. XX No. X, Month XXXX 1­–29
DOI: [Link]
10.1177/0149206317691574
© The Author(s) 2017
Reprints and permissions:
[Link]/[Link]

Job Insecurity: An Integrative Review

and Agenda for Future Research
Mindy K. Shoss
University of Central Florida

Job insecurity reflects a threat to the continuity and stability of employment as it is currently
experienced. Job insecurity has been the focus of increasing scholarly and popular attention in
light of technological, economic, and political changes over the past few decades that have left
many insecure about the future of their jobs. Yet, conceptual ambiguities exist; the literature
remains fragmented; and there lacks an overarching framework through which to organize and
reconcile findings. The goal of this article is to offer an integrative review and conceptual
framework that addresses these challenges and provides the groundwork for future research. To
that end, it proposes a definition of job insecurity that differentiates it from potential anteced-
ents, moderators, and outcomes. The article addresses antecedents and introduces a typology of
mechanisms and threat foci that links antecedents to job insecurity and suggests yet unexplored
predictors. Furthermore, the framework developed here considers four overarching mecha-
nisms—stress, social exchange, job preservation motivation, and proactive coping—through
which job insecurity leads to various outcomes, and it highlights potential competing tensions
inherent in individuals’ responses. Finally, the framework introduces threat features, economic
vulnerabilities, and psychological vulnerabilities as three overarching categories of variables
that moderate reactions to job insecurity, and it identifies factors that contribute to each. In
doing so, it suggests important levers through which to influence reactions to job insecurity; it
helps explain variability in past research; and it provides a foundation for future work.

Keywords: job insecurity; occupational health and safety; psychological contract; organiza-
tional change; labor market policies

Acknowledgments: This article benefited greatly from the insightful comments and suggestions made by the two
anonymous reviewers and the action editor, Brian Hoffman, throughout the review process. I also thank Lixin Jiang,
Dustin Jundt, Kristi Lavigne, Tahira Probst, Cort Rudolph, and members of the Work Stress in Context Lab at the
University of Central Florida for their helpful feedback on previous versions. In addition to serving on the faculty
at the University of Central Florida, Mindy Shoss is a professorial fellow in the Centre for Sustainable Human
Resource Management and Wellbeing at Australian Catholic University.
Corresponding author: Mindy K. Shoss, Department of Psychology, University of Central Florida, Psychology
Building, 4111 Pictor Lane, Orlando, FL 32816, USA.

E-mail: [Link]@[Link]

1
2   Journal of Management / Month XXXX

The history of work is that of transformation. Over the past few decades, transformative
technological, economic, and political changes surrounding work have left many insecure
about the future of their jobs (Benach et al., 2014). In particular, technological advances,
despite many benefits, have altered job tasks and demand for certain types of work (Kalleberg,
2011). Global competition has placed pressure on organizations to cut costs and adapt busi-
ness practices (Ahean, 2012). Increasing ties to financial markets have exposed employers
and employees to their ebb and flow (G. F. Davis, 2009). Against a backdrop of declining
union power, it appears that stability and predictability in employment have been increas-
ingly replaced by job insecurity (JI) as employers downsize, outsource labor, and demand
that employees do more with less.
Not surprising, JI has become a topic of increasing scholarly and popular concern. JI has
been characterized as a threat to population health (Burgard, Brand, & House, 2009), a poten-
tial mechanism behind health inequalities (Benach et al., 2014), and a tipping-point phenom-
enon both driving and resulting from organizational decline (Greenhalgh & Rosenblatt,
2010). Indeed, empirical evidence links JI to poor mental, physical, and work-related well-
being; poor job attitudes; and decrements in performance, creativity, and adaptability (e.g.,
Cheng & Chan, 2008; De Witte, Pienaar, & De Cuyper, 2016; Ferrie et al., 2001; Niessen &
Jimmieson, 2016; Probst, Stewart, Gruys, & Tierney, 2007). Yet, at the same time, some
argue that job security creates complacency (Brockner, Grover, Reed, & Dewitt, 1992), and
organizations and policy makers struggle with how to manage the trade-offs between organi-
zational flexibility and employee job security (European Commission, 2007).
This article aims to move the JI literature forward in several important ways. First, it
addresses issues of construct conceptualization and measurement and, in doing so, aims to
provide future research with a clear conceptualization of JI and recommendations for mea-
surement. Second, it consolidates and extends knowledge regarding antecedents of JI by
offering a typology of mechanisms and threat foci that links antecedents to JI and suggests
yet unexplored predictors. Third, the conceptual framework developed here addresses theo-
retical mechanisms underlying responses to JI and introduces several novel outcomes,
including yet unexplored job preservation and proactive coping strategies. Finally, the frame-
work introduces three overarching sets of moderating variables that exacerbate and attenuate
employees’ reactions to JI, and identifies factors that contribute to each. In doing so, it con-
solidates existing knowledge, explains variability in past work, and suggests levers through
which reactions to JI can be shaped. The hope is that this framework provides a generative
agenda for future research, as well as insights for management practice and for ongoing dis-
cussions regarding the consequences of an increasingly insecure world of work.

Conceptual Framework of JI
This review considers JI’s antecedents, outcomes, and moderators within an overarching
conceptual framework, displayed in Figure 1. The framework summarizes existing evidence
regarding antecedent conditions and suggests new directions for identifying antecedents
based on an underlying conceptual logic regarding how and why JI emerges. The framework
coalesces and extends explanations for JI’s effects by proposing four mechanisms through
which JI affects outcomes—stress, social exchange, job preservation motivation, and proac-
tive coping. Stress and social exchange mechanisms capture the meaning of threats; job
 Figure 1
Conceptual Model of Antecedents and Outcomes of Job Insecurity

Note: Variables in italics and ellipses reflect unanswered questions for future work. The arrows on the left of the outcomes illustrate general patterns of corresponding
and competing predictions made by the different mechanisms. Feedback loops are omitted for clarity.

3
4   Journal of Management / Month XXXX

preservation motivation and proactive coping respectively capture the ways by which indi-
viduals try to keep threats from coming to fruition or prepare themselves in case of eventual
loss. Notably, these mechanisms offer corresponding and competing predictions and suggest
yet unexplored outcomes of JI. Finally, in light of evidence that not all individuals are equally
affected by JI, the framework proposes three overarching categories of variables that moder-
ate reactions to JI by accentuating or attenuating these mechanisms. It also identifies key
drivers, or sources, of these moderators. These moderating variables involve features around
which threats may vary (i.e., elements of the stimulus), as well as ways in which individuals
can be vulnerable to the negative effects of JI—economically (in terms of ease of replacing
employment or income if lost) and psychologically (in terms of important identities, roles,
and expectations tied to one’s job or its security). Whereas economic vulnerabilities are tied
to context (e.g., in terms of the labor market demand, social safety net), psychological vul-
nerabilities concern elements of the person, in particular the self.
The current framework differs from past treatments in several notable ways. First, the
framework does not presume organizational events as the sole initiating causes of JI
(Greenhalgh & Rosenblatt, 1984), nor does it restrict the study of JI to only those threats
where the job itself (as opposed to the jobholder) is at risk (Jacobson & Hartley, 1991).
Second, while existing treatments have been bounded within disparate theoretical perspec-
tives—for example, Ashford, Lee, and Bobko (1989) operate within a psychological
contract perspective, whereas Sverke, Hellgren, and Näswall (2002) take a stress perspec-
tive—the current framework transcends these perspectives to present a more comprehen-
sive view of the ways in which individuals view and respond to JI and the potential
competing tensions in their responses. Third, the framework does not specify outcomes as
inherently short- or long-term, in contrast to Sverke et al. (2002), but calls for systematic
attention to change over time. Finally, while the literature has largely taken a piecemeal
approach toward moderators of JI-outcome relationships, the current framework provides
a systematic conceptual basis to organize moderators and understand their effects. Note
that while personality is referenced in a general sense in this review, a complete discussion
is beyond the scope of this article. Directions for future research are displayed in italics in
the figure and discussed throughout.

Defining JI
The term job insecurity is used in a variety of ways (see Table 1 for illustrative defini-
tions). This poses a challenge, as the building of a coherent and practically useful body of
knowledge surrounding JI requires a clear conceptualization of the construct. The current
paper defines JI as a perceived threat to the continuity and stability of employment as it is
currently experienced. With this regard, quantitative JI denotes perceived threats to the job
as a whole (De Witte, 1999; Sverke & Hellgren, 2002), whereas the term qualitative JI
denotes perceived threats to features of the job, in particular “threats of impaired quality in
the employment relationship” (Hellgren, Sverke, & Isaksson, 1999: 182). This definition
maintains and coalesces key elements from existing definitions, such as the notion of threat,
the emphasis on perception, and the idea that JI can occur when one’s job and job conditions
are at risk. However, it omits elements such as expectations for security and involuntary
nature of threats in order to distinguish JI from potential antecedents, moderators, and
 Shoss / Job Insecurity   5

Table 1
Sample Definitions of Job Insecurity

Reference Definition

Greenhalgh & Rosenblatt (1984) “Perceived powerlessness to maintain desired continuity in a threatened job
situation”
C. V. Van Vuuren & Klandermans (1990) “Concern about the future permanence of the job, or sometimes a concern about
a significant deterioration in conditions of employment”
Jacobson & Hartley (1991) “A discrepancy between the level of security a person experiences and the level
she or he might prefer”
Heaney, Israel, & House (1994) “An employee’s perception of a potential threat to continuity in his or her
current job”
De Witte (1999) “An overall concern about the continued existence of the job in the future”
Hellgren, Sverke, & Isaksson (1999) “Quantitative job insecurity refers to concerns about the future existence of the
present job. Qualitative job insecurity pertains to perceived threats of impaired
quality in the employment relationship, such as deterioration of working
conditions, lack of career opportunities, and decreasing salary development.”
Manski & Straub (2000; economics) “Subjective probability of exogenous job destruction”
Sverke & Hellgren (2002) “A fundamental and involuntary change concerning the continuity and security
within the employing organisation.”
Probst (2003) “Job security [is] the perceived stability and continuance of one’s job as one
knows it”
De Cuyper, Bernhard-Oettel, et al. (2008) “Employees’ perceptions about potential involuntary job loss”
Klandermans, Hesselink, & Van Vuuren “A concern about the future of one’s job”
(2010)
Burchell (2011; sociology) “An employee’s perception of the likelihood of the losing their job involuntarily
in, say, the next six or twelve months”
Loi, Ngo, Zhang, & Lau (2011) “A psychological state in which workers vary in their expectations of future job
continuity within an organization”
De Cuyper, Mäkikangas, Kinnunen, “Worker’s perception or concern about potential involuntary job loss”
Mauno, & De Witte (2012)
Schreurs, Van Emmerik, Günter, & “Employees’ feeling that their job is at risk or that they are likely to face job
Germeys (2012) loss”
Keim, Landis, Pierce, & Earnest (2014) “The overall apprehension of the continuing of one’s job”
Vander Elst, De Witte, & De Cuyper “The subjectively perceived and undesired possibility to lose the present job in
(2014) the future, as well as the fear or worries related to this possibility of job loss”
Ellonen & Nätti (2015) “Individual’s evaluation of how likely it is that one will lose one’s job in near
future”
Vander Elst, De Cuyper, Baillien, Niesen, “The perceived threat of losing the current job in the near future”
& De Witte (2016)

outcomes and in line with criticisms levied by several authors (e.g., Probst, 2003; Vander
Elst, De Cuyper, & De Witte, 2011). JI exists on a continuum from insecure to secure, where
employees experience job security when they perceive that the continuity and stability of
their jobs are unthreatened. This review focuses on JI as a global construct, instead of more
narrowly focusing on its quantitative or qualitative components.

Defining Characteristics of JI
This definition points to several core elements of JI. While some of these elements have
been variously articulated in other treatments (e.g., De Witte, 1999; T. Van Vuuren,
Klandermans, Jacobson, & Hartley, 1991), it is worth highlighting them to be clear about
what JI is and what JI is not. First, JI is a subjective experience (De Witte, 1999). This focus
6   Journal of Management / Month XXXX

on perceptions, though consistent with most conceptualizations, contrasts with the designa-
tion of jobs as objectively insecure—for example, based on contract type (e.g., temporary
workers) or objective organizational circumstance (e.g., layoffs). Given the subjective nature
of JI, two persons in the same objective situation may experience very different levels of JI
(T. Van Vuuren et al., 1991).
Second, the notion of threat highlights JI as a future-focused phenomenon. JI reflects a
forecast about an event, specifically a loss event, which might happen at some point in the
future. Thus, not all anticipated or potential job-related events create JI—rather, only those
that involve the “potential for harm or loss” (Folkman & Lazarus, 1985: 152; Boswell,
Olson-Buchanan, & Harris, 2014). Because threats have not yet materialized, JI involves
uncertainty (De Witte, 1999; Probst, 2003; Sverke et al., 2002). Hence, the study of JI is the
study of how people perceive and respond to “visualized [job or job feature] loss” (Greenhalgh
& Rosenblatt, 1984: 441) as opposed to actual job or job feature loss. Finally, what is under
threat in the case of JI is the stability and continuity of one’s current employment—specifi-
cally, one’s current job in one’s current organization (De Witte, 1999; Probst, 2003). This
differentiates JI from related constructs, such as employability, which captures an individu-
al’s perceived ability to obtain a new job, for example, due to “know-how, skills, knowledge
of the labour market, and adaptability” (De Cuyper, Bernhard-Oettel, Berntson, De Witte, &
Alarco, 2008: 490).

Cleaning Up the Construct

Although job security was part of early models of work motivation, inquiry into JI began
in earnest following the widespread layoff and downsizing events that began in the late
1980s. As a result, much of the initial literature was aimed at understanding how employees
responded to these types of events (e.g., Jacobson & Hartley, 1991). This initial lens resulted
in several features becoming embedded in conceptualizations of JI, including the involuntary
nature of threats, the notion of JI occurring when previously secure jobs become insecure,
and perceptions of control. These elements are purposely excluded from the current defini-
tion in an effort to clarify the JI construct and stimulate research on how these conditions
shape responses to threats.
In particular, assuming that JI occurs only in the face of involuntary threats ignores that
employees might enter potentially precarious job situations voluntarily (e.g., choosing to work
in organizations with selective retention systems or in temporary or contract positions; De
Cuyper, De Jong, et al., 2008; Probst, 2003). Conceptualizing JI as occurring only when previ-
ously secure work is threatened is likewise problematic because it would suggest that JI
research exclude individuals working in more inherently insecure positions (e.g., temporary
employees). Finally, considering JI to occur only to the extent that people feel powerless to
counteract threats confounds the perception of threat with control (Probst, 2003). Importantly,
not all threats may be perceived as uncontrollable. For instance, early-stage tenure-track fac-
ulty would be expected to experience greater control over their job security than employees
facing mass layoffs. These variables are viewed here as moderating conditions, rather than
construct assumptions, and are integrated as such into the framework presented in Figure 1.
Future work in JI also requires clarification with regard to whether JI is a cognitive or
affective construct. This ambiguity might stem from the fact that the term insecurity can refer
to cognitive or emotional experiences. The cognitive approach is advocated here given that a
 Shoss / Job Insecurity   7

critical question for the JI literature involves understanding the conditions under which job-
insecure employees experience anxiety and worry about this threat (Probst, 2003). These
reactions—termed affective JI (Huang, Niu, Lee, & Ashford, 2012), job security satisfaction
(Probst, 2003), and job loss strain (Ito & Brotheridge, 2007)—thus arguably better reflect
proximal outcomes of JI, rather than part of JI itself (Probst, 2003).
In summary, job-insecure employees perceive threats to their jobs or job features. This
conceptualization distinguishes JI as a phenomenon that is perceptual, future oriented, and
uncertain, and it can refer to potential loss of the job as a whole, as well as deterioration in
job conditions and loss of anticipated opportunities. This definition eliminates several
assumptions and constraints in prior definitions, thereby inviting such questions as follows:
Do individuals respond differently to JI when insecure work is voluntary? How do percep-
tions of being able to protect one’s job—for instance, via high performance—affect reactions
to JI? Answering these and other questions requires precise, unconfounded measures of JI.

Implications for Measurement

Table 2 displays a number of commonly used measures of JI. The table is not exhaustive,
as studies frequently shorten or adapt measures or use ad hoc items. This practice creates
challenges for the comparability of findings across studies—challenges greatly exacerbated
by issues of construct contamination in existing measures. The initial columns in Table 2
categorize the measures as capturing quantitative or qualitative JI and illustrate potential
construct contamination with affective reactions and perceived control. For instance, the
Johnson, Messe, and Crano (1984) scale includes items involving worry over the conse-
quences of job loss, as well as the ability to avoid job loss by working hard. O’Neill and
Sevastos’ (2013) job loss insecurity scale likewise asks about the respondent’s perceived
ability to counteract threats. The Ashford et al. (1989) measure includes perceived threats to
the job, threats to job features, powerlessness, and importance of job and job features; how-
ever, only threats to the job and job features reflect JI as it is currently conceptualized (with
the exception of items about moving to “higher” positions). While most common, affective
reactions and control are not the only sources of potential construct contamination. For
example, the O’Neill and Sevastos (2013: 340) marginalization and organizational survival
dimensions were developed inductively from responses to the phrase “I feel insecure in my
job when” and seem to capture antecedents rather than JI.
The inclusion of items tapping different constructs makes it difficult to tease out which
components are driving effects. In some cases, different components might even have coun-
tervailing relationships with other variables. For example, JI and job loss worry exhibit coun-
tervailing cross-sectional correlations with organizational commitment (Ito & Brotheridge,
2007; Staufenbiel & König, 2011). While JI threatens commitment, those most committed
are most distressed by the prospects of losing their jobs. Also highly problematic is the con-
tinued use of multiplicative scoring, which is a feature of the Ashford et al. (1989) measure
(e.g., Lee, Bobko, & Chen, 2006). This measure is scored based on the following formula:

Job Insecurity =[(Σ job feature importance × perceived threat to features) +

(Σ importance of total job × perceived threat to total job)]× powerlessness
8
Table 2
Sample Measures of Job Insecurity

Scale Captures . . . a

Reference Sample Items Qnt Ins Ql Ins Aff Rct Control Person Uncert Time

Multi-item measures
Caplan, Cobb, French, Van • How certain are you about what your future career picture looks like? • How certain are you × × × ×
Harrison, & Pinneau, about whether your job skills will be of use and value five years from now? • How certain are
(1975) you about what your responsibilities will be six months from now?
Johnson, Messe, & Crano • The thought of getting fired really scares me. • I am worried about the disgrace of being fired. × × ×
(1984) • If I get fired, I will not know how to tell people. • If I do good work, my job would be safe. •
Working hard would keep me from getting fired.
Ashford, Lee, & Bobko JI = [(Σ job feature importance × perceived threat to features) + [(Σ importance of total job × × × ×
(1989) perceived threat to total job)] × powerlessness
Job Feature Importance: In your worklife, how important are each of the following features
to you personally? • Geographic location • Having promotion opportunities • A job that has
a significant impact on others. Perceived Threat to Features: Looking to the future, what is
the probability that changes could occur—changes you don’t want or might disagree with that
would negatively affect each of these features? Total Job Importance: Assume for a moment
that each of the following events could happen to you; how important to you personally is the
possibility that: • You may lose your job and be moved to a lower level within the organization
• Your department or division’s future may be uncertain. • You may be moved to a different
job at a higher position in your current location. Perceived Threat to Total Job: Again, thinking
about the future, how likely is it that each of these events might actually occur to you in your
current job? Powerlessness: • I have enough power in this organization to control events that
might affect my job.
Hellgren, Sverke, & Quantitative JI: • I am worried about having to leave my job before I would like to. • There is a × ×
Isaksson (1999) risk that I will have to leave my present job in the year to come. • I feel uneasy about losing my
job in the near future.
Hellgren et al. (1999) Qualitative JI: • My future career opportunities in [organization] are favourable. • I feel that × ×
[organization] can provide me with a stimulating job content in the near future. • I believe that
[organization] will need my competence also in the future.

(continued)
 Table 2 (continued)
Scale Captures . . . a

Reference Sample Items Qnt Ins Ql Ins Aff Rct Control Person Uncert Time

De Witte (2000; see Vander JI Scale • Chances are, I will soon lose my job. • I feel insecure about the future of my job. • I ×
Elst, De Witte, & De think I might lose my job in the near future. • I am sure I can keep my job.
Cuyper, 2014)
Probst (2003) Job Security Index: What is the future of your job with this organization like? • sure • uncertain • × ×
can depend on being here • up in the air • stable • questionable
Probst (2003) Job Security Satisfaction Scale: What is your job security like? • satisfactory • looks optimistic • × ×
more secure than most in my job or profession • acceptable
Huang, Niu, Lee, & Affective JI Scale: • I lose sleep worrying about my future with this company. • I am tense about × ×
Ashford (2012) maintaining my current job employment status. • I am scared by the thought of losing my job. • I
am troubled by the thought of losing my job.
O’Neill & Sevastos (2013) Job Loss Insecurity: • I am certain of losing my job. • I am uncertain about my future with this × × ×
organization. • No matter how hard I work there is no guarantee that I am going to keep my
job. Job Changes Insecurity: • I am expecting unfavorable changes to my job. • I will probably
lose many features of my job that I value the most. Organizational Survival Insecurity: • Senior
management is really trying to build this organization and make it successful. Marginalization
Insecurity: • I feel as though management is avoiding me.
Van den Broeck et al. Qualitative JI: • I feel insecure about the characteristics and conditions of my job in the future. • ×
(2014) Chances are, my job will change in a negative way.
Single-item measures
De Witte (1999) How large, in your opinion, is the probability that you will become unemployed in the near future? ×
Roskies, Louis-Guerin, & What is the probability (0-100) of losing your job within the next year? × ×
Fournier (1993)

Note: Scale and subscale titles are noted in italics. JI = job insecurity.
aQntIns = quantitative insecurity; Ql Ins = qualitative insecurity; Aff Rct = affective reactions; Person = person (vs. job) referent; Uncert = uncertainty (vs. likelihood); Time = time frame.

9
10   Journal of Management / Month XXXX

Multiplicative scales have been highly criticized on conceptual and statistical grounds
(Evans, 1991). Specifically, (a) only the highest and lowest possible scores yield unique solu-
tions, making other scores impossible to interpret; (b) not every total score is possible, mak-
ing the measure ordinal, not interval; and (c) analyses with a multiplicative measure amount
to including a cross-product in a regression model without including its constituent
components.

A Measurement Agenda
Moving forward, researchers should use scales and items that more precisely assess JI,
and they should abandon multiplicative scoring. With this regard, the Probst (2003) and De
Witte (2000; see Vander Elst, De Witte, & De Cuyper, 2014) measures focus on overall per-
ceptions of threat of job loss. The latter has been validated in several languages. Research has
found measures of overall perceptions to be preferable to composite scales (e.g., Crossley,
Bennett, Jex, & Burnfield, 2007), and these measures might outperform measures that ask
about specific threats (e.g., total job scale of Ashford et al., 1989), although this remains an
empirical question.
Several other measurement issues are important for future research to address, as
illustrated in the right three columns of Table 2. First, scrutiny of the items in qualitative
JI measures raises questions about the referents of some of the scales. The Van den
Broeck et al. (2014) and O’Neill and Sevastos (2013) job changes insecurity scales focus
on changes to the job and more explicitly capture the notion of potential loss that under-
lies JI. In contrast, the Caplan, Cobb, French, Van Harrison, and Pinneau (1975) and,
perhaps to a lesser extent, the Hellgren et al. (1999) scales appear more oriented to future
career prospects and occupational insecurity. Research is needed to examine the extent
to which these scales overlap. Research should also investigate whether a person con-
cerned about the need for his or her skills might anticipate job loss; thus, these scales
blur quantitative and qualitative JI.
The second issue concerns uncertainty versus likelihood phrasing of items. Conceptually,
uncertainty is maximized at the midpoint in likelihood scales, where higher scores reflect
relatively greater, albeit still imperfect, certainty of loss (i.e., “I am likely to lose my job”).
Research is needed to understand how participants respond to these different phrasings and
the implications for interpreting results. A third issue concerns the time frame of scaling.
Roskies and Louis-Guerin (1990) suggest that bounding JI within a particular time frame
(e.g., probability of losing one’s job in the next year) might help distinguish acute and chronic
JI, although it is important to note that this cannot capture variability in JI over time. However,
Manski and Straub (2000) cautioned that because people might quit to preempt job loss,
intentions to quit might confound items inquiring about likelihood of loss in a particular time
frame. Future research should explore this potential confound and whether it is helpful to
instruct participants to answer items independently of intentions to quit.
In summary, JI research needs to use uncontaminated measures that facilitate clear inter-
pretations of results. Several existing measures appear to meet these criteria. Yet, research is
needed to examine questions related to (a) global versus facet measures, (b) person versus
job referents in qualitative JI scales, (c) uncertainty versus likelihood phrasing, and (d)
whether intentions to quit serve as a confound for measures of JI.
 Table 3
Summary of Research on Antecedents of Job Insecurity
Theorized
Antecedents Relationship Theorized Mechanisms Illustrative References and Empirical Findingsa

National/macroeconomic
Poor economic condition (e.g., ↑ Stimulate organizational efforts to reduce costs; distal Anderson & Pontusson (2007): b = .03 (SE = .02), controlling for policy, change in economic condition,
unemployment rate)b warning sign of a potential threat. demographics. Lübke & Erlinghagen (2014): b = .16 (SE = .04), controlling for demographics.
Decline in economic ↑ See above; individuals and organizations are particularly Anderson & Pontusson (2007): b = .09 (SE = .04), controlling for policy, economic condition,
condition (e.g., change in attuned to changes in their environments. demographics. Lübke & Erlinghagen (2014): b = .12 (SE = .03), controlling for economic condition and
unemployment rate)b demographics.
Industry decline, shrinking ↑ Stimulate job-threatening changes as organizations Roskies & Louis-Guerin (1990): perceived changes in business or technological environment predicted
demandb compete to survive; distal warning sign of potential insecurity about termination and demotions and long-term job insecurity (β = .16, .13), controlling for
threats. personal and environmental factors. Jiang, Probst, & Sinclair (2013): occupational outlook predicted
individual job insecurity (b = –.02), controlling for demographics.
Technological changeb ↑ See above. See above.
Employment protection ↓ Objectively makes jobs more secure by placing restrictions Anderson & Pontusson (2007): b = –.20 (SE = .10), controlling for economic conditions and demographics.
legislation on firing workers.
Organizational
Company performance ↓ Poor performance is often a precursor to downsizing. Debus, König, & Kleinmann (2014): r = –.28, company-level correlation.
Changes in leadership ↑ Considered a proximal warning sign of potential changes Roskies & Louis-Guerin (1990): composite of management changes, formal announcements, and rumors
to one’s job. predicted insecurity about working conditions, insecurity about termination and demotions, and long-
term job insecurity (β = .24, .24, .17), controlling for personal and environmental factors.
Organizational change ↑ Objective threat; provides environmental signals that job Keim, Landis, Pierce, & Earnest (2014): meta-analytic rc = .18.
is at risk.
Organizational communication ↓ Poor communication enables rumors, creates unclear Keim et al. (2014): meta-analytic rc = –.24.
expectations.
Fairness of past change ↓ Expect fairness to continue and to limit risk. Ito & Brotheridge (2007): r = –.31.
Use of temporary or ↑ Signal that the organization is less committed to long-term De Cuyper, Sora, et al. (2009): r(Belgium) = .70, r(Spain) = .37, between percentage of temporary workers
contingent contracts employment; temporary workers may compete with and job insecurity climate.
permanent workers.
Union presence ↓ Provides institutional protection for jobs. Anderson & Pontusson (2007): union membership (b = –.15, SE = .03), controlling for policy, economic
conditions, and demographics.
Sector (private vs. public) ↓ Higher objective risk in private sector; public sector Anderson & Pontusson (2007): b = –.31 (SE = .03), controlling for policy, economic conditions, and
generally perceived as safe. demographics.
Employee involvement ↓ Reduces uncertainty. Huang, Niu, Lee, & Ashford (2012): r = –.18
Positional
Formal contract (temporary, ↑ Objective threat as part of the contract; lower attachment Keim et al. (2014): meta-analytic rc = .29. Klandermans, Hesselink, & Van Vuuren (2010): Compared
contingent vs. permanent) to the organization and more peripheral work. with employees with other contracts, agency workers (D = .12) and those with a fixed contract (D = .08)
experienced greater job insecurity.
Part-time employment status ↑ Objective threat; more peripheral position may create Keim et al. (2014): meta-analytic rc = .05, ns. Debus et al. (2014): r = .03, ns. See also arguments in
perception of insecurity. Näswall & De Witte (2003).
Manual/blue-collar workb ↑ Lower levels of human capital; work in industries more Keim et al. (2014): meta-analytic rc = .19. Anderson & Pontusson (2007): b = .09 (SE = .03), controlling for
prone to layoffs. policy, economic conditions, and demographics.

11
(continued)
12
Table 3 (continued)
Theorized
Antecedents Relationship Theorized Mechanisms Illustrative References and Empirical Findingsa

Individual: Demographic
Organizational tenure ↓ Higher tenure is associated with more firm-specific skills. Lübke & Erlinghagen (2014): b = –.04 (SE = .01), controlling for demographics.
Age ↑/↓ Older workers could have a perceptual sensitivity to Keim et al. (2014): meta-analytic rc = –.07. Anderson & Pontusson (2007): b = –.01 (SE = .00),
threats; in contrast, employers take seniority into controlling for policy, economic conditions, and demographics. Dekker (2010): β = –.08, controlling for
account in reductions. demographics.
Womenb ↑/? Lower power in labor market creates sensitivity to threats; Keim et al. (2014): meta-analytic rc = –.03, ns. Anderson & Pontusson (2007): b = –.04 (SE = .02), ns,
employment in more precarious jobs, but demand and controlling for policy, economic conditions, and demographics. Dekker (2010): β = –.07, controlling for
discrimination protection might reduce threats. demographics. Lübke & Erlinghagen (2014): b = .15 (SE = .04), controlling for demographics.
Minority statusb ↑ Discrimination; disparities in occupational characteristics Yang & Zheng (2015): odds for black workers experiencing job insecurity as compared with white workers
and opportunities for human capital development; = 2.47, controlling for human capital and organizational factors.
perceptual bias based on negative workplace
experiences.
Education levelb ↓ Education is a key component of human capital and Keim et al. (2014): meta-analytic rc = –.04, ns. Anderson & Pontusson (2007): b = –.02 (SE = .00),
therefore promotes job security. controlling for policy, economic conditions, and demographics.
Individual: Experiential
Perceived employabilityb ↓ Employers use job security to attract and retain De Cuyper, Bernhard-Oettel, Berntson, De Witte, & Alarco (2008): r = –.14. De Cuyper, Mäkikangas,
employable workers; employable less likely to appraise Kinnunen, Mauno, & De Witte (2012): r = –.18 with job insecurity assessed 1 year later, cross-lagged
events as job threatening. panel coefficient over 1 year = –.08.
Training experiences ↓ Investment in human capital. Kohlrausch & Rasner (2014): b = –.20 (SE = .09), relationship strengthens for those with lower levels of
education.
Role ambiguity, role conflict ↑ Uncertainty about role and performance leads to Keim et al. (2014): meta-analytic rc ambiguity = .28, conflict = .20.
perception of job at risk.
Emotional exhaustion ↑ Exhausted employees might be vulnerable to job loss due De Cuyper, Mäkikangas, Kinnunen, Mauno, & De Witte (2012): r = .16, with job insecurity assessed 1 year
to poorer performance. later, cross-lagged panel coefficient = .05.
Prior unemployment ↑ Creates predisposition to perceive threats; psychological Ellonen & Nätti (2015; 2008 model): logistic coefficient = 1.2 predicting dichotomized job insecurity.
spillover. Roskies & Louis-Guerin (1990): predicted working condition insecurity, insecurity about termination and
demotion, and long-term insecurity (β = .15, .18, .09), controlling for personal and environmental factors.
Individual: Personality
External locus of controlb ↑ Predisposition to view one’s future as controlled by Keim et al. (2014): meta-analytic rc = .25. Debus et al. (2014): r = .38.
environmental events.
Negative affectivityb ↑ Tendency to appraise events negatively. Debus et al. (2014): r = .19.
Low self-esteemb ↑ Tendency to perceive self as unworthy and incapable. Kinnunen, Feldt, & Mauno (2003): self-esteem cross-lagged panel coefficient over 1 year, β = –.08.
Low core self-evaluationsb ↑ Tendency to perceive threats in one’s environment. Låstad, Berntson, Näswall, & Sverke (2014): core self-evaluations associated with quantitative and
qualitative job insecurity (r = –.27, –.29) assessed 1 year later.
Interpersonal
Workplace bullying ↑ Bullying can involve threatening jobs and creating Glambek, Matthiesen, Hetland, & Einarsen (2014): r = .24 with job insecurity assessed 6 months later.
undesirable job conditions.

aCorrected meta-analytic correlations (r ) are provided for those predictors included in the Keim et al. (2014) meta-analysis. Additional illustrative references are not included in the meta-
c
analysis. Preference is given to large-scale studies (e.g., Anderson & Pontusson, 2007) in listing illustrative references. All findings are statistically significant unless followed by ns. Bivariate
correlations are presented if provided in the original paper.
bAntecedent conditions that enhance both job insecurity and vulnerabilities, thus creating particularly perilous conditions.
 Shoss / Job Insecurity   13

Table 4
Typology of Mechanisms and Foci Linking Antecedents to Job Insecurity

Mechanism

Threat Focus Selection Subjective Perception

Job at risk Employed in at-risk jobs (e.g., temporary work) Heightened tendency to perceive
greater risk to the job
Person at risk Create circumstances that put self at risk (e.g., poor Heightened tendency to perceive
performance, poor relationship with supervisor) risk to self as jobholder

Sources of JI
The majority of research has focused on JI’s consequences, with relatively less research
devoted to antecedents. To guide future work, this section reviews past research on anteced-
ents, suggests potential mechanisms linking antecedents to JI, and proposes several new
categories of predictors. To lay the groundwork for this discussion, Table 3 summarizes the
current state of research regarding antecedents theorized to affect JI.

Antecedents
Although JI is a perceptual phenomenon, these perceptions generally have their basis in
environmental threats (Klandermans, Hesselink, & Van Vuuren, 2010). For instance, JI tends
to rise with a rising national unemployment rate (Anderson & Pontusson, 2007) and in
response to technological and other changes in the business environment (e.g., globalization)
that contribute to industry and occupational decline, shrinking demand, and the outsourcing
of labor (Jiang, Probst, & Sinclair, 2013; Lübke & Erlinghagen, 2014; Roskies & Louis-
Guerin, 1990). From a policy perspective, employment protection legislation (e.g., notice
periods, severance pay) enhances the difficulty of firing workers and reduces JI (Anderson &
Pontusson, 2007).
At the company level, company performance, management changes, as well as formal and
informal announcements of impending changes serve as more proximal warning signs that
one’s job might be at risk and are accordingly associated with increased JI (Debus, König, &
Kleinmann, 2014; Ellonen & Nätti 2015; Keim, Landis, Pierce, & Earnest, 2014; Roskies &
Louis-Guerrin, 1990). Union membership reduces JI, while private sector employment
increases it (Anderson & Pontusson, 2007). Consistent with the notion that temporary posi-
tions are inherently insecure, temporary employees report greater JI (Keim et al., 2014).
Interestingly, permanent workers in organizations that employ greater proportions of tempo-
rary workers report greater JI (De Cuyper, Sora, De Witte, Caballer, & Peiró, 2009). Finally,
consistent with economic and technological trends that threaten blue-collar work, blue-collar
workers report higher levels of JI (Kalleberg, 2011; Keim et al., 2014).
Individual variables are also relevant. Debus et al. (2014) found that the personality traits
of negative affectivity and locus of control explained nearly double the amount of variance
in JI perceptions as did company performance and contract type. Other traits, such as low
core self-evaluations and low self-esteem, as well as several experiential (e.g., emotional
14   Journal of Management / Month XXXX

exhaustion) and demographic factors (e.g., minority status, tenure), have been linked to JI
(De Cuyper, Mäkikangas, Kinnunen, Mauno, & De Witte, 2012; Låstad, Berntson, Näswall,
& Sverke, 2014; Yang & Zheng, 2015). Although one might expect to find person-environ-
ment interactions, the existing evidence is somewhat weak (Debus et al., 2014). The general
logic is that environmental conditions create threats, while individual characteristics create
heightened vigilance to these threats. However, research is needed to examine the extent to
which various antecedent conditions indeed operate in such a manner.

Mechanisms and Threat Foci

It remains unclear if various antecedents, especially those at the individual level, engender
JI because they are objectively associated with increased risk and/or because they create a
perceptual bias leading to greater risk perception. For example, is prior unemployment asso-
ciated with JI (Ellonen & Nätti, 2015) because it leads one to accept more objectively inse-
cure work (e.g., temporary or contingent work) or because it creates a “psychological
spillover” (P. R. Davis, Trevor, & Feng, 2015) that predisposes a person to perceive greater
threats? The former is indicative of a selection mechanism, whereby antecedents lead to JI by
virtue of creating more objective threats—for example, by stimulating employment in at-risk
jobs or behavior that puts one’s job at risk. In contrast, perception mechanisms capture that
antecedents can influence how individuals subjectively perceive their environment by (a)
stimulating higher baseline perceptions of threats and/or (b) amplifying or lessening JI in
response to more objective threats. Empirically, selection mechanisms raise the possibility
that some antecedents affect JI indirectly. For example, if prior unemployment predicts JI
because it leads people to be disproportionately employed in more insecure jobs (e.g., tem-
porary positions), one would expect to find that contract type mediates the prior unemploy-
ment-JI relationship. However, one would expect (a) direct effects if prior unemployment
creates higher overall levels of threat perception and (b) moderated effects if prior unemploy-
ment serves to amplify JI in response to temporary contracts or other threats.
To provide greater insight into these mechanisms, Table 4 introduces a 2 × 2 typology that
crosses the selection/perception mechanisms with the specific foci of threats. Although sur-
prisingly ignored in the literature, Jacobson and Hartley (1991) noted that threats to job
security can be person independent, meaning that the job is at risk regardless of the holder
(labeled here job-at-risk threats), or person dependent, meaning that one’s continued employ-
ment in a given job is at risk (person-at-risk threats) although the position itself may con-
tinue. This typology suggests that antecedents give rise to JI by virtue of selection and/or
perception mechanisms related to job-at-risk or person-at-risk threats.

Uncovering New Predictors

The typology is valuable not only for understanding how and why antecedents relate to JI
but also for expanding research on antecedents of JI. This is especially the case for person-
at-risk predictors, which have been largely neglected in the JI literature. To this aim, five new
sets of antecedents are ripe for empirical investigation: individual performance, organiza-
tional performance management systems, organizational culture, supervisor-subordinate
relationships, and self-employment. For example, poor task performance, high absenteeism,
 Shoss / Job Insecurity   15

and counterproductive work behaviors, although typically viewed as outcomes of JI, should
predict JI by virtue of placing individual jobholders at risk. People working in organizations
using forced ranking systems (especially if rankings are tied to reductions in force), in orga-
nizations with competitive cultures, and in highly political environments likely experience
greater JI. These environments might not only create threats for particular jobholders but also
enhance vigilance to potential threats. Poor relationships with supervisors might induce
threats via selection and/or perceptual mechanisms (Hershcovis & Barling, 2010). Indeed,
participants in O’Neill and Sevastos’s (2013) qualitative study reported that that they felt
insecure about the future of their jobs when they perceived that superiors were avoiding them
and when they felt excluded from relevant workplace conversations. In contrast, high-quality
relationships with a supervisor might shield employees from risk (Lawrence, Halbesleben, &
Paustian-Underdahl, 2013). Finally, JI research has largely ignored the self-employed,
although Schonfeld and Mazzola’s (2015) qualitative study revealed several sources of JI
among self-employed workers. Importantly, for self-employed workers, the line between
job-at-risk threats and person-at-risk threats may be blurred. Clearly, much more research is
needed to fully map the antecedent space.

Summary
Environmental conditions as well as individual factors predict JI. They do so by creating
threats and/or stimulating enhanced perception of threats. The position itself (regardless of
holder) might be threatened, or threats might be localized to specific individuals. The pro-
posed 2 × 2 typology of mechanisms and threat foci aims to stimulate (a) greater insight into
why and how antecedent conditions predict JI and (b) the identification of additional ante-
cedents, including personal performance, management strategies, and supervisor relationship
quality.

Reactions to JI: Mechanisms and Outcomes

As depicted in Figure 1, JI relates to outcomes via four overarching mediating mecha-
nisms: stress-related mechanisms, social exchange–related mechanisms, job preservation
motivation, and proactive coping. The following sections describe the mechanisms and con-
sider corresponding and competing predictions made among them.

Stress-Related Mechanisms
Several rationales position JI as a stressor (De Witte et al., 2016). First, JI threatens “vita-
mins” (Warr, 1987) and resources that are key to well-being and acquired through work,
including identity, income, social connection, and social status (Jiang & Probst, 2014;
Schreurs, Van Emmerik, Notelaers, & De Witte, 2010). In this vein, characterizations of JI as
being stressful have drawn from work on unemployment (e.g., Jahoda, 1982) to illustrate
latent (e.g., social value) and manifest (e.g., income) benefits of work threatened by JI (De
Witte, 1999; Sverke et al., 2002; Vander Elst, Näswall, Bernhard-Oettel, De Witte, & Sverke,
2016). Second, researchers point out that uncertainty itself is stressful (De Witte, 1999).
Third, JI violates basic psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness
(Deci & Ryan, 2000; Vander Elst, Van den Broeck, De Witte, & De Cuyper, 2012; Van den
16   Journal of Management / Month XXXX

Broeck et al., 2014). These rationales align well with broader appraisal and resource-based
models of stress (e.g., Folkman & Lazarus, 1985; Hobfoll, 1989). Consistent with the notion
that anxiety and worry would be expected to result from the appraisal of valued resources as
being threatened, the measures of affective responses to JI in Table 2 could be used as indica-
tors of stress-related responses. While some view a lack of situational control as a mediator
of JI effects (e.g., Vander Elst, De Cuyper, Baillien, Niesen, & De Witte, 2016), control over
threats (i.e., situational control) is treated as a moderator here given that not all threats might
be viewed as uncontrollable.
These explanations point to JI as a formidable stressor that results in a variety of strain
outcomes, including poor well-being, diminished job attitudes, and poor performance,
which the evidence largely supports (Cheng & Chan, 2008). This is especially the case
with well-being, where the effects of JI mirror the effects of actual loss (De Witte, 1999).
Moreover, given that stress narrows attention and diminishes self-regulation, stress mech-
anisms predict that JI results in increased workplace injuries and accidents, along with
diminished creativity and increased instances of interpersonal mistreatment and organiza-
tional counterproductive work behavior (De Cuyper, Baillien, & De Witte, 2009; Niesen,
De Witte, & Battistelli, 2014; Probst, 2004; Van den Broeck et al., 2014). These outcomes
are discussed later, as they are the subject of corresponding and competing predictions
made by several perspectives. That JI threatens key purposes and benefits of working and
frustrates basic psychological needs predicts outcomes beyond the workplace. For exam-
ple, several studies find that parents’ JI is negatively associated with children’s academic
performance, career self-efficacy, work beliefs, and work attitudes (e.g., Barling, Dupré,
& Hepburn, 1998; Lim & Sng, 2006; Zhao, Lim, & Teo, 2012). Arguments in the group
conflict literature suggest that JI might worsen attitudes toward groups seen as competing
for jobs. Indeed, JI is weakly associated with negative attitudes toward immigration
(Billiet, Meuleman, & De Witte, 2014). Research is needed to investigate potential con-
sequences for the workplace, such as discrimination.

Social Exchange–Related Mechanisms

Social exchange theories offer another lens through which to view JI—namely, as an
imbalance in the exchange relationship between employee and employer. From the perspec-
tive of psychological contract theory, JI reflects a breach of the relational psychological
contract, wherein employees exchange loyalty and commitment for security and other socio-
emotional benefits (De Cuyper & De Witte, 2006, 2007). Viewed through the lens of justice
theory, JI lessens the rewards that employees receive for their efforts and is therefore likely
to be perceived as unjust (Piccoli & De Witte, 2015). Thus, the former suggests that employ-
ees view JI as an imbalance between obligations and inducements; the latter, between inputs
and outcomes.
Like the stress perspective, social exchange mechanisms (e.g., Gakovic & Tetrick, 2003;
Siegrist, 1996) predict that employees will respond to JI with ill-being, lessened job attitudes,
and lessened contributions to the organization (De Cuyper & De Witte, 2006; Piccoli & De
Witte, 2015; Reisel, Probst, Chia, Maloles, & König, 2010). JI can also violate exchanges
beyond the employee-organization relationship. Employees view JI as a breach of the psy-
chological contract between union members and unions, leading to intentions to resign
 Shoss / Job Insecurity   17

membership (De Witte et al., 2008), as well as between individuals and their elected political
officials, leading to diminished trust in politicians and political institutions (Wroe, 2014).

Job Preservation Motivation

Because threats have not yet manifested, JI might motivate employees to act in ways that
they believe might keep job or job feature loss from occurring (i.e., job preservation motiva-
tion). Job preservation strategies can take several forms. For example, employees might
endeavor to demonstrate their worth to the employer by devoting extra effort toward behav-
iors that will be noticed and valued. For example, research finds that job-insecure employees
enact more safety behaviors when the organization values safety (Probst, 2004). This line of
reasoning predicts that JI results in enhanced task performance and organizational citizenship
behavior, as these behaviors are likely to be noticed and valued by higher-ups (Shoss &
Probst, 2012). Other active job preservation efforts include attempting to portray oneself as
an ideal employee, for example by “suppressing personal values and pretending to embrace
organizational values” (i.e., facades of conformity; Hewlin, Kim, & Song, 2016: 539) and
being willing to make concessions (e.g., lower pay, longer hours; Otto, Hoffman-Biencourt,
& Mohr, 2010). Thus, JI might result in work intensification as a job preservation strategy on
the part of employees.
Employees might also pursue more passive strategies in an attempt to “fly under the radar”
and refrain from behavior that would draw attention to them and put their jobs at greater risk.
Evidence suggests that job-insecure employees avoid alerting the organization to potential
problems (Schreurs, Guenter, Jawahar, & De Cuyper, 2015), engage in presenteeism (Miraglia
& Johns, 2016), and are less likely to take advantage of work-nonwork support programs
(Boswell et al., 2014). This logic predicts that job-insecure employees enact fewer organiza-
tionally directed counterproductive behaviors (Probst et al., 2007). However, given that manag-
ers are often inattentive to interpersonal behaviors during times of uncertainty, job preservation
motivation predicts that employees might mistreat coworkers as a means to compete with
potential rivals (Shoss & Probst, 2012). Research is needed to identify strategies that people
might use to compete with others, such as hoarding knowledge (S. Wang & Noe, 2005).
Future work should consider that job preservation motivation might not only translate into
efforts to demonstrate one’s own worth as an employee, but also translate into efforts to dem-
onstrate the value of the particular position. For example, job-insecure employees might try
to convince higher-ups of the importance of the job or take steps to increase the job’s impor-
tance (i.e., job aggrandizement). They might also pursue collective strategies—for example,
by joining unions (Bender & Sloane, 1999) or engaging in protests (Klandermans, Van
Vuuren, & Jacobson, 1991). That said, this is a complex issue (see Sverke et al., 2004), and
some argue that individuals might avoid collective action for fear that doing so will threaten
their jobs (Kalleberg, 2011).

Proactive Coping
Job preservation motivation captures individuals’ attempts to avoid loss. In contrast, pro-
active coping captures people’s attempts to cope ahead of time with job or job feature loss,
although loss is uncertain (see Aspinwall & Taylor, 1997). For instance, some might network
or proactively seek out other jobs to preempt job loss or gauge the market (Klehe, Zikic, Van
18   Journal of Management / Month XXXX

Vianen, Koen, & Buyken, 2012). Job-insecure persons might also pursue educational oppor-
tunities to enhance potential job opportunities, which future research should investigate.
They might increase savings to buffer against potential income loss. Although relatively
unexplored, research does find that job-insecure employees report withholding purchases of
consumption goods (Lozza, Libreri, & Bosio, 2012). JI also features prominently in demand-
driven explanations for social insurance, as those who perceive themselves to be at risk seek
greater protection in case of loss (Dekker, 2010).

Corresponding and Competing Predictions

As illustrated in a general manner in Figure 1, the four mechanisms make several corre-
sponding as well as competing predictions regarding outcomes. The paragraphs that follow
describe corresponding and conflicting predictions and associated empirical evidence.

Corresponding predictions. Stress- and social exchange–related mechanisms predict

that JI undermines personal and work-related well-being as well as job attitudes and perfor-
mance, albeit for different reasons (i.e., strain and diminished self-regulation and attention
effects vs. an imbalance in the social exchange relationship; Niessen & Jimmieson, 2016;
Reisel et al., 2010; Sverke & Hellgren, 2002). In accordance with these arguments, longitu-
dinal work links JI to poor mental and physical health (De Witte et al., 2016), burnout (De
Cuyper et al., 2012), and diminished self-esteem (Kinnunen, Feldt, & Mauno, 2003). Job-
insecure employees also report lower levels of job satisfaction, organizational commitment,
and trust (Cheng & Chan, 2008). Cross-sectional evidence suggests that social exchange–
related mechanisms, especially injustice, might be a stronger mediator of well-being and job
attitudinal effects (Piccoli & De Witte, 2015; Vander Elst, De Cuyper, et al., 2016). However,
longitudinal research is needed to truly assess mediation and to compare the relative strength
of these mechanisms across time. Performance is a subject of competing predictions and is
therefore discussed below.
While the stress and social exchange perspectives are most closely aligned, other perspec-
tives do make similar predictions regarding specific outcomes. Stress and job preservation
motivation both predict poor interpersonal outcomes, and indeed JI has been linked to bully-
ing, diminished coworker support, and diminished coworker satisfaction (De Cuyper et al.,
2009; Ferrie et al., 2001; Probst, 2005). From the stress perspective, this occurs as a result of
displaced aggression and diminished self-regulation. From the perspective of job preservation
motivation, these are instrumental behaviors designed to compete with potential rivals (Shoss
& Probst, 2012). Stress, social exchange, and proactive coping all predict that JI reduces
intentions to remain, either as a response to a stressful environment, a response to a damaged
social exchange relationship, or to preempt loss. The empirical evidence supports this predic-
tion (Cheng & Chan, 2008). Finally, it is worth noting that some job preservation strategies
might reflect proactive coping to the extent that they are done to facilitate coping with poten-
tial loss. For instance, employees might try to curry favor with supervisors to receive a posi-
tive recommendation or to position for a more secure job within the same organization.

Competing predictions. The stress and social exchange mechanisms suggest that JI cre-
ates stress and damages social exchange relationships, with the consequence of lessening
employees’ willingness to put forth effort to help the organization and making it difficult
 Shoss / Job Insecurity   19

for employees to perform. Yet, job preservation motivation suggests that JI might motivate
employees to work harder for the instrumental purpose of trying to secure their jobs. Staufen-
biel and König (2010) found evidence of these competing tensions in a cross-sectional study.
Specifically, they found (a) a weak positive direct effect of JI on supervisor-rated perfor-
mance and (b) a stronger negative indirect effect through weakened job attitudes, leading to
an overall negative effect of JI on performance (see Stynen, Forrier, Sels, & De Witte, 2015).
Consistent with this finding, meta-analysis reveals an overall negative relationship between
JI and performance (Cheng & Chan, 2008). Stress effects appear to be particularly detrimen-
tal to the extent that performance requires creativity and adaptability (Niessen & Jimmieson,
2016; Niesen et al., 2014). However, studies have found moderated and/or curvilinear effects
of JI on performance (Brockner et al., 1992; Selenko, Mäkikangas, Mauno, & Kinnunen,
2013) and citizenship behaviors (C. F. Lam, Liang, Ashford, & Lee, 2015), suggesting that
job preservation motivation might outweigh stress/social exchange effects at certain levels
of JI and depending on the circumstances. Studies finding positive and negative relationships
between JI and organization-focused counterproductive work behavior (Probst et al., 2007;
Reisel et al., 2010) likewise suggest the existence of moderators.
Another competing prediction comes from the fact that job preservation and proactive
coping both require attention and effort. In many cases, effort devoted to one is unlikely to
be available to be devoted to the other. For this reason, job preservation motivation and pro-
active coping could be viewed as competing responses to JI, where those focused on trying
to preserve their jobs are unlikely to devote energy toward proactive coping. In this sense,
one might expect stress mechanisms to conflict with proactive coping, as the negative emo-
tional arousal associated with greater stress-related reactions to JI might make it difficult for
employees to devote the energy and attention required to proactively cope (Aspinwall &
Taylor, 1997). Finally, while the social exchange perspective predicts that employees will see
JI as a failure on the part of the union to protect them, the job preservation perspective sug-
gests that job-insecure employees might turn to the union for support (Sverke et al., 2004).
Future research is needed to examine the nature and timing of these effects.

Summary
The previous sections described four main mechanisms through which JI operates to
effect outcomes. These reflect stress- and social exchange–related consequences, as well as
strategies that employees pursue to avoid loss and to proactively cope with loss should it
occur. They yield important questions for future research: What are the strategies that indi-
viduals use to try to preserve their job or job features? What are the ways by which people
proactively cope with potential job or job feature loss? How do competing tensions among
the mechanisms play out over time? Although a full discussion is omitted for space, research
is also needed to explore potential feedback mechanisms. For example, there is some evi-
dence that job preservation strategies can ultimately harm well-being and job attitudes
(Boswell et al., 2014; De Cuyper, Schreurs, Vander Elst, Baillien, & De Witte, 2014; Hewlin
et al., 2016). However, these strategies could, as intended, reduce JI (De Cuyper et al., 2014).
Proactive coping might lessen concerns about being able to find an equal or better job should
loss occur (affecting economic vulnerabilities, as detailed next). These questions echo the
importance of longitudinal research on JI.
20   Journal of Management / Month XXXX

Moderators: Impact and Key Drivers

The previous sections reviewed general patterns of reactions to JI. The following sections
describe three sets of moderating factors—threat features, economic vulnerabilities, psycho-
logical vulnerabilities—expected to shape reactions to JI and identify potential key drivers of
each.

Threat Features
As noted in the construct clarification section, not all experiences of JI are the same, espe-
cially in terms of perceived situational control, duration, and volition. While situational con-
trol has received some attention, particularly as a conceptual explanation for the effects of
variables identified here as key drivers of situational control, the other features have received
less research attention and are presented largely as directions for future research.

Perceived situational control. Perceived situational control concerns individuals’ apprais-

als regarding the degree to which a given threat can be counteracted—in other words, whether
there are ways to keep the threat of loss from translating into actual loss. In that sense, it can
be differentiated from job control, dispositional control, and other conceptualizations (Vander
Elst, De Cuyper, et al., 2016). To the extent to which people view threats as controllable, they
are more likely to be motivated to take action to try to avert threats. Thus, perceived situational
control should enhance job preservation motivation in light of JI (Klandermans et al., 1991).
Indeed, employees appear to respond to JI with greater citizenship behaviors when threats are
tied to performance (Wong, Wong, Ngo, & Liu, 2005). Stress theory also posits that situational
control will reduce stress-related effects (Folkman & Lazarus, 1985).

Threat duration. From a temporal perspective, threats may vary from acute to those that
are more chronic in nature (Roskies, Louis-Guerin, & Fournier, 1993). Prolonged uncer-
tainty and vigilance associated with more chronic threats would be expected to enhance
stress-related mechanisms, resulting in a stronger relationship between JI and stress-related
outcomes (Burchell, 2011; Ferrie et al., 2001). Indeed, in one of the few studies to address
duration, Burgard et al. (2009) found that the detrimental well-being impact of JI compounds
over time. As a related consequence, prolonged uncertainty should make it difficult for indi-
viduals to sustain effort toward job preservation strategies and proactively cope.

Volition. As previously noted, some might enter insecure job situations voluntarily—for
example, because these situations offer flexibility, opportunities for training, or some other
benefits (e.g., for a discussion of voluntary temporary workers, see De Cuyper, De Jong,
et al., 2008; for a discussion of voluntary self-employed, see Schonfeld & Mazzola, 2015).
People might also support decisions in their organizations that enhance JI (e.g., about intro-
ducing new technologies). Much remains unknown about how volition shapes reactions to
JI. From a theoretical standpoint, personal choice would be expected to assuage the extent
to which JI frustrates autonomy needs, thus buffering stress-related effects (De Cuyper, De
Jong, et al., 2008; Deci & Ryan, 2000). Moreover, those entering job-insecure situations vol-
untarily might be more attuned to positive aspects of these situations, with the consequence
of reducing negative stress and social exchange consequences of JI (De Cuyper, De Jong,
 Shoss / Job Insecurity   21

et al., 2008; De Cuyper & De Witte, 2007). That said, De Cuyper and De Witte (2007) found
that JI affects commitment more for voluntary than involuntary temporary workers, but this
unexpected finding might be due to the operationalization of volition. Those who are invol-
untarily in a job-insecure situation would be expected to put forth greater effort in an attempt
to make their jobs more secure. However, those who enter these situations voluntarily might
view them more positively and respond with greater effort in order to remain. For an excel-
lent discussion of these issues with reference to temporary workers, see De Cuyper, De Jong,
et al. (2008).

Key drivers of threat features. Threat features provide levers through which various fac-
tors shape reactions to JI. For instance, job control or participative decision making could
afford individuals opportunities for situational control (Probst, 2003). Studies have revealed
that these variables buffer the negative impact of JI on several outcomes, including satisfac-
tion, withdrawal, engagement, and health complaints (Barling & Kelloway, 1996; Probst,
2005; Schreurs et al., 2010; but see Vander Elst et al., 2011). Organizational communication,
organizational justice, and a high-quality relationship with one’s supervisor might promote
perceptions of situational control by clarifying expectations and signaling that effort will be
rewarded. Accordingly, research finds buffering effects of these variables on several negative
effects of JI (Jiang & Probst, 2014; Loi, Ngo, Zhang, & Lau, 2011; Schreurs, Van Emmerik,
Günter, & Germeys, 2012; Sora, Caballer, Peiró, Silla, & Gracia, 2010; H. Wang, Lu, &
Siu, 2015). Although unions have been theorized to enhance the perceived controllability of
threats, research is unclear with this regard (Hellgren & Chirumbolo, 2003). The source of JI
is also relevant. For example, announcements of impending layoffs would spur a relatively
acute experience of JI. Finally, personality- and career-related factors might affect voluntary
employment in more precarious jobs (De Cuyper, De Jong, et al., 2008; Schonfeld & Maz-
zola, 2015).

Economic Vulnerabilities
Economic vulnerabilities refer to concerns about job and income replacement should loss
occur (Anderson & Pontusson, 2007; Berglund, Furåker, Vulkan, 2014). Specifically, labor
market insecurity reflects insecurity about one’s prospects of finding a job of equal or better
quality on the external labor market. Labor market insecurity corresponds well with the
notion of perceived external employability, as articulated by Vanhercke, De Cuyper, Peeters,
and De Witte (2014). Income insecurity reflects concerns about income replacement should
loss occur. The notion of economic vulnerabilities has its roots in earlier discussions about
job dependence. However, the meaning of the term job dependence is somewhat ambiguous,
and it has been used in several ways (e.g., Cheng & Chan, 2008; Greenhalgh & Rosenblatt,
1984; Ito & Brotheridge, 2007; Richter, Näswall, Bernhard-Oettel, & Sverke, 2014).
High levels of economic vulnerabilities heighten the threat posed by JI and heighten
stress-related reactions. In accordance with this idea, research finds that those who are con-
cerned about being able to find a new job and/or replace lost income have more negative
affective reactions to JI (Anderson & Pontusson, 2007; Berglund et al., 2014; Ito &
Brotheridge, 2007). Workers with fewer labor market prospects, such as manual and blue-
collar workers, respond to JI with increased strain (Sverke et al., 2002). One might anticipate
that those more economically vulnerable are more motivated to try to secure their jobs
22   Journal of Management / Month XXXX

because they anticipate greater challenges replacing the job and/or income should loss occur.
However, given the heightened stress reactions, it is unclear whether such efforts are likely
to succeed. Those most economically vulnerable may have challenges coping proactively
because they have less initial resources on which to draw and potentially less human capital
(Vanhercke et al., 2014). In support of this idea, JI is more strongly associated with turnover
intentions among those who report greater perceived employability (Berntson, Näswall, &
Sverke, 2010), suggesting that those who are the most employable have greater opportunities
to proactively cope.

Key drivers of economic vulnerabilities. Economic vulnerabilities are linked to context,

defined by Johns (2006) in an omnibus sense as reflecting the journalist’s heuristics of where
(e.g., country, industry), when (e.g., historical time), who (e.g., occupation, demographic
contexts), and why (e.g., rationale for data collection). The first three are most relevant here
and together create individuals’ “situational opportunities and constraints” (Johns, 2006:
386) for replacing loss (see e.g., Vanhercke et al., 2014). For example, research across a
number of Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries finds that
country-level unemployment benefits are negatively associated with worries over JI (Ander-
son & Pontusson, 2007). Moreover, country-level labor market (e.g., job search assistance,
worker training) and income security (e.g., unemployment benefits) expenditures buffer the
impact of JI on job attitudes (Debus, Probst, König, & Kleinmann, 2012).
Also relevant is the state of the economy, as both income and labor market insecurity
increase along with a deteriorating state of the economy (Anderson & Pontusson, 2007;
Lübke & Erlinghagen, 2014). Accordingly, the negative impact of JI on well-being has been
found to be stronger in times of economic downturn (J. Lam, Fan, & Moen, 2014). Jobs that
provide learning opportunities have been found to reduce labor market insecurity (Dekker,
2010) and thus would be expected to buffer JI effects. Likewise, competency-based employ-
ability (Berntson et al., 2010; Vanhercke et al., 2014), personal and professional networks, as
well as traits (e.g., external locus of control; Dekker, 2010) and demographic factors (e.g.,
education, age; Anderson & Pontusson, 2007; Cheng & Chan, 2008; Manski & Straub, 2000)
that affect labor market insecurity would be expected to contribute to greater worry over
threats and associated detrimental consequences. Finally, household income and savings and,
especially in the United States, access to alternative sources of health care coverage might
reduce economic vulnerabilities (Schonfeld & Mazzola, 2015). To summarize, economic
vulnerabilities—including both labor market and income insecurity—produce more detri-
mental reactions to JI. Key drivers include national social safety net policies, macroeconomic
conditions, and demographics.

Psychological Vulnerabilities
Reactions to JI are not simply a function of whether individuals can replace what is lost.
Rather, they are a function of the degree of potential loss from a psychological standpoint—in
particular, the extent to which people have important identities, roles, and expectations tied to
their job or its security. The final set of moderating conditions, psychological vulnerabilities,
thus concerns the extent to which JI threatens important identities, roles, and expectations.
Psychological vulnerabilities heighten stress associated with JI, given that JI poses an even
greater threat to the self under these circumstances. Accordingly, research finds that people who
 Shoss / Job Insecurity   23

strongly identify with their jobs and who base a large part of their self-esteem on work-related
achievement respond more negatively to JI (Blom, Richter, Hallsten, & Svedberg, 2015; Probst,
2000). Similar effects would be expected under conditions of high on-the-job embeddedness,
which captures psychological and social investment in one’s job (Crossley et al., 2007).
Psychological vulnerabilities—in particular, expectations regarding job security—can affect
the degree to which JI is experienced as an imbalance in the social exchange relationship. For
example, research finds that those who have greater expectations regarding security perceive JI
as more unfair, are less committed, and have greater intentions to quit (Bernhard-Oettel, De
Cuyper, Schreurs, & De Witte, 2011). While those who are most psychologically vulnerable
might be most motivated to preserve their jobs, stress-related effects may counteract these
efforts (e.g., for findings regarding job-involved employees, see Probst, 2000).

Key drivers of psychological vulnerabilities. Several factors shape identities, roles, and
expectations and would therefore be expected to affect reactions to JI. For example, past
research reveals that JI is more distressing for men given the greater threat to their identity and
traditional role as the breadwinner (J. Lam et al., 2014). However, women with egalitarian, as
opposed to traditional, gender values experience similar responses to JI as do men (Gaunt &
Benjamin, 2007). JI has been found to be more detrimental among employees with collectiv-
ist cultural values, as it threatens culturally valued group ties and security (reflecting greater
psychological vulnerability; Probst & Lawler, 2006).
Elements of the formal and psychological contract are also relevant. Temporary employ-
ees engage in less relational contracting than permanent employees and are therefore less
likely to view JI as a violation of their expectations (De Cuyper & De Witte, 2006). Thus,
although employees in temporary positions experience greater JI, permanent employees
experience more severe consequences in terms of satisfaction, commitment, and sickness
absenteeism, reflecting their greater psychological vulnerabilities (De Cuyper & De Witte,
2006; Klandermans et al., 2010). The greater their investments into their positions (e.g., in
terms of tenure, sacrifices made for the job), the more security individuals might expect and
the more likely it is that they will see JI as unjust or a breach of expectations. In contrast,
some have argued that an expansive view of one’s career (i.e., a “boundary-less” career ori-
entation) can enable flexibility and reduce negative reactions to JI by lowering expectations
for security (Klehe et al., 2012; Otto et al., 2010). With this regard, personality is expected to
be relevant, as traits shape expectations, goals, and values. In summary, to the extent that JI
threatens key components of one’s identity, sources of esteem, and expectations, people are
psychologically vulnerable to greater detrimental reactions to JI.

Summary, Implications, and Further Directions

This framework provides an accounting of key variables that would be expected to affect
reactions to JI. In doing so, it provides a rich perspective on who is most adversely affected
by JI and why. These moderating factors further suggest several avenues through which orga-
nizations and policy makers can intervene to affect reactions to JI, and they pave the way for
future work to uncover additional moderators. They also suggest particular challenges for
organizations, as those most predisposed to provide effort and loyalty (i.e., high job involve-
ment) are at greatest risk for negative well-being and attitudinal consequences of JI. Viewed
in conjunction with the previous discussion of antecedents, this framework contributes to
24   Journal of Management / Month XXXX

research and practice by providing a means to identify particularly perilous conditions: those
variables (notated in Table 3) that not only enhance JI but also predict more harmful reactions
by virtue of their impact on one or more moderating conditions. For instance, by virtue of
experiencing both greater JI and greater economic vulnerabilities, certain groups (e.g., lower
educated, blue-collar) may be particularly disadvantaged (Kalleberg, 2011).
Beyond investigating the ideas set forth here, future work might expand the framework in
several directions. First, future work should examine whether effects differ according to
quantitative versus qualitative JI. For example, economic vulnerabilities might play a larger
role in shaping reactions to quantitative JI since they are more focused on the job as a whole.
Second, future research might extend the model to examine JI as a collective construct.
Emerging research suggests that JI climate (shared perceptions of JI) influences outcomes
above and beyond individual JI and can exacerbate the effects of individual JI (e.g., Jiang &
Probst, 2016; Sora, De Cuyper, Caballer, Peiró, & De Witte, 2013). Third, and relatedly,
research might expand the framework to examine group- and organization-level outcomes
(e.g., Shoss & Probst, 2012).

Conclusions
This article provides an overview of the rapidly growing JI literature aimed at identifying
crucial gaps and providing a general framework through which to guide future work. To that
end, it calls for greater attention to the conceptualization and measurement of JI, specifically
to eliminate restrictive construct assumptions and measurement confounds. Research is addi-
tionally needed to expand knowledge of antecedents of JI, in particular by recognizing that
JI occurs not only when individuals perceive that future of the job itself is threatened but also
when they perceive certain risks to themselves as jobholders. The proposed framework calls
for greater attention to ways that employees try to counteract threats and proactively cope
with potential loss, as well as the role that moderators play in shaping these and other reac-
tions to JI. These questions demand longitudinal work to more precisely test hypotheses
(e.g., regarding increases or decreases in attitudes or behaviors) and explore feedback loops.
By laying out key gaps needing research attention, the discussion provided here will ideally
help stimulate research that produces greater insights into this increasingly frequent and
important experience.

References
Ahearn, R. J. 2012. Globalization, worker insecurity, and policy approaches (Report No. RL34091). Washington,
DC: Congressional Research Service.
Anderson, C. J., & Pontusson, J. 2007. Workers, worries and welfare states: Social protection and job insecurity in
15 OECD countries. European Journal of Political Research, 46: 211-235.
Ashford, S., Lee, C., & Bobko, P. 1989. Content, causes, and consequences of job insecurity: A theory-based mea-
sure and substantive test. Academy of Management Journal, 32: 803-829.
Aspinwall, L. G., & Taylor, S. E. 1997. A stitch in time: Self-regulation and proactive coping. Psychological
Bulletin, 12: 417-436.
Barling, J., Dupré, K. E., & Hepburn, C. G. 1998. Effects of parents’ job insecurity on children’s work beliefs and
attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83: 112-118.
Barling, J., & Kelloway, E. K. 1996. Job insecurity and health: The moderating role of workplace control. Stress
Medicine, 12: 253-259.
Benach, J., Vives, A., Amable, M., Vanroelen, C., Tarafa, G., & Muntaner, C. 2014. Precarious employment:
Understanding an emerging social determinant of health. Annual Review of Public Health, 35: 229-253.
 Shoss / Job Insecurity   25

Bender, K. A., & Sloane, P. J. 1999. Trade union membership, tenure and the level of job insecurity. Applied
Economics, 31: 123-135.
Berglund, T., Furåker, B., & Vulkan, P. 2014. Is job insecurity compensated for by employment and income secu-
rity? Economic and Industrial Democracy, 35: 165-184.
Bernhard-Oettel, C., De Cuyper, N., Schreurs, B., & De Witte, H. 2011. Linking job insecurity to well-being and
organizational attitudes in Belgian workers: The role of security expectations and fairness. International
Journal of Human Resource Management, 22: 1866-1886.
Berntson, E., Näswall, K., & Sverke, M. 2010. The moderating role of employability in the association between job
insecurity and exit, voice, loyalty and neglect. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 31: 215-230.
Billiet, J., Meuleman, B., & De Witte, H. 2014. The relationship between ethnic threat and economic insecurity in
times of economic crisis: Analysis of European Social Survey data. Migration Studies, 2: 295-299.
Blom, V., Richter, A., Hallsten, L., & Svedberg, P. 2015. The associations between job insecurity, depressive symp-
toms and burnout: The role of performance-based self-esteem. Economic and Industrial Democracy. doi:10.1
177/0143831X15609118
Boswell, W. R., Olson-Buchanan, J. B., & Harris, T. B. 2014. I cannot afford to have a life: Employee adaptation to
feelings of job insecurity. Personnel Psychology, 67: 887-915.
Brockner, J., Grover, S., Reed, T., & DeWitt, R. 1992. Layoffs, job insecurity, and survivors’ work effort: Evidence
of an inverted-u relationship. Academy of Management Journal, 2: 413-425.
Burchell, B. J. 2011. A temporal comparison of the effects of unemployment and job insecurity on wellbeing.
Sociological Research Online, 16(1): 9.
Burgard, S. A., Brand, J. E., & House, J. S. 2009. Perceived job insecurity and worker health in the United States.
Social Science & Medicine, 69: 777-785.
Caplan, R. D., Cobb, S., French, J. R. P., Van Harrison, R., & Pinneau, S. R. 1975. Job demands and worker health.
Washington, DC: National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.
Cheng, G. H.-L., & Chan, D. K.-S. 2008. Who suffers more from job insecurity? A meta-analytic review. Applied
Psychology: An International Review, 57: 272-303.
Crossley, C. D., Bennett, R. J., Jex, S. M., & Burnfield, J. L. 2007. Development of a global measure of job embedded-
ness and integration into a traditional model of voluntary turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92: 1031-1042.
Davis, G. F. 2009. The rise and fall of finance and the end of the society of organizations. Academy of Management
Perspectives, 23: 21-42.
Davis, P. R., Trevor, C. O., & Feng, J. 2015. Creating a more quit-friendly national workforce? Individual layoff
history and voluntary turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100: 1434-1455.
De Cuyper, N., Baillien, E., & De Witte, H. 2009. Job insecurity, perceived employability and targets’ and perpetra-
tors’ experiences of workplace bullying. Work & Stress, 3: 206-224.
De Cuyper, N., Bernhard-Oettel, C., Berntson, E., De Witte, H., & Alarco, B. 2008. Employability and employees’
well-being: Mediation by job insecurity. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 57: 488-509.
De Cuyper, N., De Jong, J., De Witte, H., Isaksson, K., Rigotti, T., & Schalk, R. 2008. Literature review of theory and
research on the psychological impact of temporary employment: Towards a conceptual model. International
Journal of Management Reviews, 10: 25-51.
De Cuyper, N., & De Witte, H. 2006. The impact of job insecurity and contract type on attitudes, well-being
and behavioral reports: A psychological contract perspective. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 79: 395-409.
De Cuyper, N., & De Witte, H. 2007. Job insecurity in temporary versus permanent workers: Associations with
attitudes, well-being, and behavior. Work & Stress, 21: 65-84.
De Cuyper, N., Mäkikangas, A., Kinnunen, U., Mauno, S., & De Witte, H. 2012. Cross-lagged associations between
perceived external employability, job insecurity, and exhaustion: Testing gain and loss spirals according to the
conservation of resources theory. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33: 770-788.
De Cuyper, N., Schreurs, B., Vander Elst, T., Baillien, E., & De Witte, H. 2014. Exemplification and perceived
job insecurity: Associations with self-rated performance and emotional exhaustion. Journal of Personnel
Psychology, 13: 1-10.
De Cuyper, N., Sora, B., De Witte, H., Caballer, A., & Peiró, J. M. 2009. Organizations’ use of temporary employ-
ment and a climate of job insecurity among Belgian and Spanish permanent workers. Economic and Industrial
Democracy, 30: 564-591.
De Witte, H. 1999. Job insecurity and psychological well-being: Review of the literature and exploration of some
unresolved issues. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8: 155-177.
26   Journal of Management / Month XXXX

De Witte, H. 2000. Arbeidsethos en jobonzekerheid: Meting en gevolgen voor welzijn, tevredenheid en inzet op het
werk [Work ethic and job insecurity: Assessment and consequences for well-being, satisfaction and performance
at work]. In R. Bouwen, K. De Witte, H. De Witte, & T. Taillieu (Eds.), Van groep naar gemeenschap [From
group to community]. Liber Amicorum Prof. Dr. Leo Lagrou (pp. 325-350). Leuven, Belgium: Garant.
De Witte, H., Pienaar, J., & De Cuyper, N. 2016. Review of 30 years of longitudinal studies on the association
between job insecurity and health and well-being: Is there causal evidence? Australian Psychologist, 51: 18-31.
De Witte, H., Sverke, M., Van Ruysseveldt, J. V., Goslinga, S., Chirumbolo, A., Hellgren, J., & Näswall, K. 2008.
Job insecurity, union support and intentions to resign membership: A psychological contract perspective.
European Journal of Industrial Relations, 14: 85-103.
Debus, M. E., König, C. J., & Kleinmann, M. 2014. The building blocks of job insecurity: The impact of environ-
mental and person-related variables on job insecurity perceptions. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 87: 329-351.
Debus, M. E., Probst, T. M., König, C. J., & Kleinmann, M. 2012. Catch me if I fall! Enacted uncertainty avoidance
and the social safety net as country-level moderators in the job insecurity–job attitudes link. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 97: 690-698.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. 2000. The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination
of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11: 319-338.
Dekker, F. 2010. Labour flexibility, risks and the welfare state. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 31: 593-611.
Ellonen, N., & Nätti, J. 2015. Job insecurity and the unemployment rate: Micro- and macro-level predictors of per-
ceived job insecurity among Finnish employees 1984-2008. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 36: 51-71.
European Commission. 2007. Towards common principles of flexicurity: More and better jobs through flexibility
and security. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
Evans, M. G. 1991. The problem of analyzing multiplicative composites: Interactions revisited. American
Psychologist, 46: 6-15.
Ferrie, J., Shipley, M., Marmot, M., Martikainen, P., Stansfeld, S., & Smith, G. 2001. Job insecurity in white-collar
workers: Toward an explanation of association with health. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 6:
26-42.
Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. 1985. If it changes it must be a process: Study of emotion and coping during three
stages of a college examination. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48: 150-170.
Gakovic, A., & Tetrick, L. E. 2003. Psychological contract breach as a source of strain for employees. Journal of
Business and Psychology, 18: 235-246.
Gaunt, R., & Benjamin, O. 2007. Job insecurity, stress and gender: The moderating role of gender ideology.
Community, Work, and Family, 10: 341-355.
Glambek, M., Matthiesen, S. B., Hetland, J., & Einarsen, S. 2014. Workplace bullying as an antecedent to job insecu-
rity and intention to leave: A 6-month prospective study. Human Resource Management Journal, 24: 255-268.
Greenhalgh, L., & Rosenblatt, Z. 1984. Job insecurity: Toward conceptual clarity. Academy of Management Review,
9: 438-448.
Greenhalgh, L., & Rosenblatt, Z. 2010. Evolution of research on job insecurity. International Studies of Management
and Organization, 40: 6-19.
Heaney, C. A., Israel, B. A., & House, J. S. 1994. Chronic job insecurity among automobile workers: Effects on job
satisfaction and health. Social Science and Medicine, 38: 1431-1437.
Hellgren, J., & Chirumbolo, A. 2003. Can union support reduce the negative effects of job insecurity on well-being?
Economic and Industrial Democracy, 24: 271-289.
Hellgren, J., Sverke, M., & Isaksson, K. 1999. A two-dimensional approach to job insecurity: Consequences for
employee attitudes and well-being. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8: 179-195.
Hershcovis, M. S., & Barling, J. 2010. Towards a multi-foci approach to workplace aggression: A meta-analytic
review of outcomes from different perpetrators. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31: 24-44.
Hewlin, P. F., Kim, S. S., & Song, Y. H. 2016. Creating facades of conformity in the face of job insecurity: A study
of consequences and conditions. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 89: 539-567.
Hobfoll, S. E. 1989. Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist,
44: 513-524.
Huang, G., Niu, X., Lee, C., & Ashford, S. J. 2012. Differentiating cognitive and affective job security: Antecedents
and outcomes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33: 752-769.
Ito, J. K., & Brotheridge, C. M. 2007. Exploring the predictors and consequences of job insecurity’s components.
Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22: 40-64.
 Shoss / Job Insecurity   27

Jacobson, D., & Hartley, J. 1991. Mapping the context. In J. Hartley, D. Jacobson, B. Klandermans, & T. Van
Vuuren (Eds.), Job insecurity: Coping with jobs at risk: 1-22. London: Sage.
Jahoda, M. 1982. Employment and unemployment: A social-psychological analysis. London: Cambridge University Press.
Jiang, L., & Probst, T. M. 2014. Organizational communication: A buffer in times of job insecurity? Economic and
Industrial Democracy, 35: 557-579.
Jiang, L., & Probst, T. M. 2016. A multilevel examination of affective job insecurity climate on safety outcomes.
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 21: 366-377.
Jiang, L., Probst, T. M., & Sinclair, R. R. 2013. Perceiving and responding to job insecurity: The importance of
multilevel contexts. In A. Antoniou & C. Cooper (Eds.), The psychology of the recession on the workplace:
176-195. Cheltenham, UK: Elgar.
Johns, G. 2006. The essential impact of context on organizational behavior. Academy of Management Review, 31:
386-408.
Johnson, C. D., Messe, L. A., & Crano, W. D. 1984. Predicting job performance of low income workers: The work
opinion questionnaire. Personnel Psychology, 37: 291-299.
Kalleberg, A. L. 2011. Good jobs, bad jobs: The rise of polarized and precarious employment systems in the United
States, 1970s to 2000s. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Keim, A. C., Landis, R. S., Pierce, C. A., & Earnest, D. R. 2014. Why do employees worry about their jobs? A
meta-analytic review of predictors of job insecurity. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 19: 269-290.
Kinnunen, U., Feldt, T., & Mauno, S. 2003. Job insecurity and self-esteem: Evidence from cross-lagged relations in
a 1-year longitudinal sample. Personality and Individual Differences, 35: 617-632.
Klandermans, B., Hesselink, J. K., & Van Vuuren, T. 2010. Employment status and job insecurity: On the subjective
appraisal of an objective status. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 31: 557-577.
Klandermans, B., Van Vuuren, T., & Jacobson, D. 1991. Employees and job insecurity. In J. Hartley, D. Jacobson,
B. Klandermans, & T. Van Vuuren (Eds.), Job insecurity: Coping with jobs at risk: 40-54. London: Sage.
Klehe, U., Zikic, J., Van Vianen, A. E. M., Koen, J., & Buyken, M. 2012. Coping proactively with economic stress:
Career adaptability in the face of job insecurity, job loss, unemployment, and underemployment. In P. L.
Perrewé, J. R. B. Halbesleben, & C. C. Rosen (Eds.), The role of the economic crisis on occupational stress
and well being: 131-176. Bingley, UK: Emerald.
Kohlrausch, B., & Rasner, A. 2014. Workplace training in Germany and its impact on subjective job security: Short-
or long-term returns? Journal of European Social Policy, 24: 337-350.
Lam, C. F., Liang, J., Ashford, S., & Lee, C. 2015. Job insecurity and organizational citizenship behavior: Exploring
curvilinear and moderated relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100: 499-510.
Lam, J., Fan, W., & Moen, P. 2014. Is insecurity worse for well-being in turbulent times? Mental health in context.
Society and Mental Health, 4: 55-73.
Låstad, L., Berntson, E., Näswall, K., & Sverke, M. 2014. Do core self-evaluations and coping style influence the
perception of job insecurity? European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 23: 680-692.
Lawrence, E. R., Halbesleben, J. R. B., & Paustian-Underdahl, S. C. 2013. The influence of workplace injuries on
work-family conflict: Job and financial insecurity as mechanisms. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,
18: 371-383.
Lee, C., Bobko, P., & Chen, Z. X. 2006. Investigation of the multidimensional model of job insecurity in China and
the USA. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 55: 512-540.
Lim, V., & Sng, Q. 2006. Does parental job insecurity matter? Money anxiety, money motives and work motivation.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 91: 1078-1087.
Loi, R., Ngo, H., Zhang, L., & Lau, V. P. 2011. The interaction between leader-member exchange and perceived job
security in predicting employee altruism and work performance. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 84: 669-685.
Lozza, E., Libreri, C., & Bosio, A. C. 2012. Temporary employment, job insecurity and their extraorganizational
outcomes. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 34: 89-105.
Lübke, C., & Erlinghagen, M. 2014. Self-perceived job insecurity across Europe over time: Does changing context
matter? Journal of European Social Policy, 24: 319-336.
Manski, C. F., & Straub, J. D. 2000. Worker perceptions of job insecurity in the mid-1990s: Evidence from the
survey of economic expectations. The Journal of Human Resources, 35: 447-479.
Miraglia, M., & Johns, G. 2016. Going to work ill: A meta-analysis of the correlates of presenteeism and a dual-path
model. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 21: 261-283.
Näswall, K. & De Witte, H. 2003. Who feels insecure in Europe? Predicting job insecurity from background vari-
ables. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 24: 189-215.
28   Journal of Management / Month XXXX

Niesen, W., De Witte, H., & Battistelli, A. 2014. An explanatory model of job insecurity and innovative work behav-
iour: Insights from social exchange and threat rigidity theory. In S. Leka & R. Sinclair (Eds.), Contemporary
occupational health psychology: Global perspectives on research & practice: 18-34. Chichester, UK: Wiley
Blackwell.
Niessen, C., & Jimmieson, N. L. 2016. Threat of resource loss: The role of self-regulation in adaptive task perfor-
mance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101: 450-462.
O’Neill, P., & Sevastos, P. 2013. The development and validation of a new multidimensional Job Insecurity Measure
(JIM): An inductive methodology. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 18: 338-349.
Otto, K., Hoffmann-Biencourt, A., & Mohr, G. 2010. Is there a buffering effect of flexibility for job attitudes and
work-related strain under conditions of high job insecurity and regional unemployment rate? Economic and
Industrial Democracy, 32: 609-630.
Piccoli, B., & De Witte, H. 2015. Job insecurity and emotional exhaustion: Testing psychological contract breach
versus distributive injustice as indicators of lack of reciprocity. Work & Stress, 29: 246-263.
Probst, T. M. 2000. Wedded to the job: Moderating effects of job involvement on the consequences of job insecu-
rity. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5: 63-73.
Probst, T. M. 2003. Development and validation of the job security index and the job security satisfaction scale. A
classical test theory and IRT approach. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 76: 451-467.
Probst, T. M. 2004. Safety and insecurity: Exploring the moderating effect of organizational safety climate. Journal
of Occupational Health Psychology, 9: 3-10.
Probst, T. M. 2005. Countering the negative effects of job insecurity through participative decision making: Lessons
from the demand-control model. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 10: 320-329.
Probst, T. M., & Lawler, J. 2006. Cultural values as moderators of employee reactions to job insecurity: The role of
individualism and collectivism. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 55: 234-254.
Probst, T. M., Stewart, S. M., Gruys, M. L., & Tierney, B. W. 2007. Productivity, counterproductivity and creativity:
The ups and downs of job insecurity. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80: 479-497.
Reisel, W. D., Probst, T. M., Chia, S., Maloles, C. M., & König, C. J. 2010. The effects of job insecurity on
job satisfaction, organizational citizenship behavior, deviant behavior, and negative emotions of employees.
International Studies of Management & Organization, 40: 74-91.
Richter, A., Näswall, K., Bernhard-Oettel, C., & Sverke, M. 2014. Job insecurity and well-being: The moderating
role of job dependence. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 23: 816-829.
Roskies, E., & Louis-Guerin, C. 1990. Job insecurity in managers: Antecedents and consequences. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 11: 345-359.
Roskies, E., Louis-Guerin, C., & Fournier, C. 1993. Coping with job insecurity: How does personality make a dif-
ference? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14: 617-630.
Schonfeld, I. S., & Mazzola, J. J. 2015. A qualitative study of stress in individuals self-employed in solo businesses.
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 20: 501-513.
Schreurs, B., Guenter, H., Jawahar, I. M., & De Cuyper, N. 2015. Speaking up when feeling job insecure. Journal
of Organizational Change Management, 28: 1107-1128.
Schreurs, B. H. J., Van Emmerik, I. H., Günter, H., & Germeys, F. 2012. A weekly diary study on the buffering
role of social support in the relationship between job insecurity and employee performance. Human Resource
Management, 51: 259-280.
Schreurs, B., Van Emmerik, H., Notelaers, G., & De Witte, H. 2010. Job insecurity and employee health: The buff-
ering potential of job control and job self-efficacy. Work & Stress, 24: 56-72.
Selenko, E., Mäkikangas, A., Mauno, S., & Kinnunen, U. 2013. How does job insecurity relate to self-reported
job performance? Analysing curvilinear associations in a longitudinal sample. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 86: 522-542.
Shoss, M. K., & Probst, T. M. 2012. Multilevel outcomes of economic stress: An agenda for future research. In P.
Perrewe, C. Rosen, & J. Halbesleben (Eds.), Research in occupational stress and well-being: The role of eco-
nomic context on occupational stress and well-being: Vol. 10, 43-86. Bingley, UK: Emerald.
Siegrist, J. 1996. Adverse health effects of high-effort/low-reward conditions. Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, 1: 27-41.
Sora, B., Caballer, A., Peiró, J. M., Silla, I., & Gracia, F. J. 2010. Moderating influence of organizational justice
on the relationship between job insecurity and its outcomes: A multilevel analysis. Economic and Industrial
Democracy, 31: 613-637.
 Shoss / Job Insecurity   29

Sora, B., De Cuyper, N., Caballer, A., Peiró, J., & De Witte, H. 2013. Outcomes of job insecurity climate: The role
of climate strength. Applied Psychology, 62: 382-405.
Staufenbiel, T., & König, C. J. 2010. A model for the effects of job insecurity on performance, turnover intention,
and absenteeism. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83: 101-117.
Staufenbiel, T., & König, C. J. 2011. An evaluation of Borg’s cognitive and affective job insecurity scales.
International Journal of Business and Social Science, 2(20): 1-7.
Stynen, D., Forrier, A., Sels, L., & De Witte, H. 2015. The relationship between qualitative job insecurity and OCB:
Differences across age groups. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 36: 383-405.
Sverke, M., & Hellgren, J. 2002. The nature of job insecurity: Understanding employment uncertainty on the brink
of a new millennium. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 51: 23-42.
Sverke, M., Hellgren, J., & Näswall, K. 2002. No security: A meta-analysis and review of job insecurity and its
consequences. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 7: 242-264.
Sverke, M., Hellgren, J., Näswall, K., Chirumbolo, A., De Witte, H., & Goslinga, S. 2004. Job insecurity and union
membership: European unions in the wake of flexible production. Brussels: P.I.E.-Peter Lang.
Van den Broeck, A., Sulea, C., Vander Elst, T., Fischmann, G., Iliescu, D., & De Witte, H. 2014. The mediating role
of psychological needs in the relation between qualitative job insecurity and counterproductive work behavior.
Career Development International, 19: 526-547.
Van Vuuren, C. V., & Klandermans, P. G. 1990. Individual reactions to job insecurity: An integrated model. In P. J.
Drenth, J. A. Sergeant, & R. J. Takens (Eds.), European perspectives in psychology: Vol. 3, 133-146. Oxford:
Wiley.
Van Vuuren, T., Klandermans, B., Jacobson, D., & Hartley, J. 1991. Employees’ reactions to job insecurity. In J.
Hartley, D. Jacobson, B. Klandermans, & T. Van Vuuren (Eds.), Job insecurity: Coping with jobs at risk: 79-
103. London: Sage.
Vander Elst, T., De Cuyper, N., Baillien, E., Niesen, W., & De Witte, H. 2016. Perceived control and psychologi-
cal contract breach as explanations of relationships between job insecurity, job strain and coping reactions:
Towards a theoretical integration. Stress and Health, 32: 110-116.
Vander Elst, T., De Cuyper, N., & De Witte, H. 2011. The role of perceived control in the relationship between job
insecurity and psychosocial outcomes: Moderator or mediator. Stress and Health, 27: 215-227.
Vander Elst, T., De Witte, H., & De Cuyper, N. 2014. The Job Insecurity Scale: A psychometric evaluation across
five European countries. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 23: 364-380.
Vander Elst, T., Näswall, K., Bernhard-Oettel, C., De Witte, H., & Sverke, M. 2016. The effect of job insecurity on
employee health complaints: A within-person analysis of the explanatory role of threats to the manifest and
latent benefits of work. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 21: 65-76.
Vander Elst, T., Van den Broeck, A., De Witte, H., & De Cuyper, N. 2012. The mediating role of frustration of
psychological needs in the relationship between job insecurity and work-related well-being. Work & Stress,
26: 252-271.
Vanhercke, D., De Cuyper, N., Peeters, E., & De Witte, H. 2014. Defining perceived employability: A psychologi-
cal approach. Personnel Review, 43: 592-605.
Wang, H., Lu, C., & Siu, O. 2015. Job insecurity and job performance: The moderating role of organizational justice
and the mediating role of work engagement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100: 1249-1258.
Wang, S., & Noe, R. A. 2005. Knowledge sharing: A review and directions for future research. Human Resource
Management Review, 20: 115-131.
Warr, P. B. 1987. Work, unemployment, and mental health. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wong, Y., Wong, C., Ngo, H., & Liu, H. 2005. Different responses to job insecurity of Chinese workers in joint
ventures and state-owned enterprises. Human Relations, 58: 1391-1418.
Wroe, A. 2014. Political trust and job insecurity in 18 European polities. Journal of Trust Research, 4: 90-112.
Yang, S., & Zheng, L. 2015. Perceived job insecurity of white and black workers: An expanded gap in organizations
with layoff prevention commitment. Sociological Spectrum, 35: 483-503.
Zhao, X., Lim, V. K. G., & Teo, T. S. H. 2012. The long arm of job insecurity: Its impact on career-specific parent-
ing behaviors and youth’s career and self-efficacy. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80: 619-628.