ABSTRACT
For a long time, organization scientists have had a rather negative attitude towards temporary work. Based on a somewhat normative approach, many organization sociologists and organizational psychologists have argued that the opportunity for employers to install a flexible workforce, to hire employees on a temporary basis, mainly seems to benefit employers (e.g., Rogers 1995). It allows employers to hire—and fire—employees based on the needs of the employer, and it reduces labour costs and administrative duties (Pfeffer and Baron 1988). It can also lead to a competitive advantage over organizations that don't adopt temporary work in their human resources strategy (Lepak and Snell 1999). The needs of temporary employees are different from those of the employers, as they usually prefer a permanent position (e.g., Von Hippel et al. 1997). Several authors stated that temporary work leads to the alienation of temporary workers and to the creation of a low-status workforce in society that is dissociated from the regular labour market (Kalleberg, Reskin, and Hudson 2000; McLean Parks and Kidder 1994; Rogers 1995). Temporary employees also experience more stress, leading to poor well-being (e.g., Zeytinoglu et al. 2004). In fact, these authors suggest that negative consequences of temporary work are inherent to this form of employment. There is even some evidence that permanent workers’ relationships with their colleagues (Broschak and Davis-Blake 2006), as well as their attitudes towards their organization, are affected negatively by employing temporary workers (e.g., Pearce 1993).
