1) The document examines whether good workplace practices can buffer the detrimental effects of job insecurity. It analyzes data from a survey of over 2,000 Finnish employees. 2) The results show job insecurity is linked to higher stress levels, while developed workplace practices (fair treatment, good supervision, development opportunities) are linked to lower stress. 3) The study also finds employees facing job insecurity less often report having developed workplace practices. However, the role of workplace practices as potential moderators between job insecurity and stress requires further analysis of interactions between these variables.

1. 1
ARE GOOD WORKPLACE PRACTICES ABLE TO BUFFER THE DETRIMENTAL
EFFECTS OF JOB INSECURITY?
AnttiSaloniemi, Professor, University of Tampere, The School of Social Sciences and Humanities (Pori), antti.saloniemi@uta.fi
Anna Väisnänen, MA, University of Tampere, The School of Social Sciences and Humanities (Pori), anna-
katarina.vaisanen@uta.fi
INTRODUCTION
It is hardly coincidental that the ground-breaking analyses of flexibility (Atkinsson, 1984) and insecurity (Greenhalgh&
Rosenblatt, 1984) in the modern working life appeared nearly simultaneously in the mid-1980s. Flexibility and insecurity
are the two sides of the same coin and both have the same institutional breeding ground: the era in which the golden
years of the Fordist regime are irrevocably over.
In terms of definitions, Greenhalgh and Rosenblatt (1984) consider job insecurity as “perceived powerlessness to
maintain desired continuity in a threatened job situation”, i.e. future orientations and powerlessness underpin job
insecurity. At the cost of a simple global variable, the authors also have a preference for multidimensional measures of
job insecurity. In other words, a more or less concrete threat of job loss is not the only dimension worth mentioning,
“…loss of valued job features is an important, but often overlooked aspect of job insecurity.”(ibid.)
In contrast to the studies on the consequences of flexibility, there is a broad consensus about the effects of job insecurity.
Meta-analyses and literature reviews focusing on job insecurity unanimously reaffirm the detrimental consequences to
psychological and physical health, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, work performance, trust, and job
involvement. Correspondingly, job insecurity increases turnover intentions (Sverke&Hellgren, 2002;Sverke,
Hellgren&Näswall, 2002; Cheng & Chan, 2008).
Even though there is general unanimity among researchers on the negative effects of insecurity, several open questions
remain. Despite theoretically grounded theses such as „Risk Society‟ (Beck 2000) or „New Economy‟ (Sennet 2006), there
are clear difficulties in obtaining firm empirical evidence of a definite increase in job insecurity (Felstead et al., 2000;
Fullerton &Wallance, 2006; OECD, 1997; Green, 2009). Additionally, in Finland job insecurity varies roughly along the
unemployment rate, without any clear rising trend since the late 1970s, the time from which JIS has been measured (e.g.
Lehto&Sutela 2009).
The fact that the empirical evidence does not uncompromisingly support the most extreme thesis on the increase in job
insecurity does not negate the importance of the phenomenon. First of all, the findings do not preclude the links between
job insecurity and detrimental working conditions. Secondly, the pure quantitative data on the proportion of employees
reporting the incidence of job loss riskmay not represent the true figures;employees may keep silent about the severity of
the threat.
BACKGROUND
The harmful effects of job insecurity on the well-being of employees and on the efficiency of organizations are
well documented and hardly need more confirmation. As insecurity has become more of a structural feature of
working life due the recurrent economic crises, employment protection legislation has turned out to be an
insufficient tool in managing the consequences of insecurity. Under these circumstances, where the demands for
flexibility are increasing, different moderating mechanisms, i.e. variables that can moderate and buffer its
negative influences of job insecurity, have merited attention.
In their pivotal work,Greenhalgh and Rosenblatt (1984) divided the moderators between job insecurity
intoroughly three categories. Firstly, as usual with stressors, individual differences play a role in coping with
stressful situations. Secondly, moderators are suggested to be related to the extent to which people perceive
themselves to be dependent on their job. According to Greenhalgh and Rosenblatt (1984), the third type of
moderators refers to social support (both work and non-work based). The first one can be labelled as internal
and the other two as external resources (Chirumbolo&Areni, 2005).

2. 2
Research literature has tested the effects of these possible moderators. In sum, internal resources as moderators
follow the logic of stress management in general (as a summary, see for exampleChirumbolo&Areni, 2010).
Based on his literature review, Hans de Witte (2005) encapsulates the basic ideas of moderator studies (in our
reading, mainly external resource type) as recommendations for better communication, developing participation
in decision making and increasing organizational justice. Lim (1996), for example, has confirmed the role of
social support as a buffer against job dissatisfaction and noncompliant behaviour at work. In addition, fair
treatment at work and organizational justice have been reported to work in a similar manner (Sverke&Hellgen,
2002). Lim (1996) and Büssing (1999) also found that positive social networks outside work (friends, family) can
be regarded as buffers to job-related insecurity. Regardless, the support mediated by trade union membership,
for example, does not buffer the effects of job insecurity (Goslinga et al., 2005).
However, the literature focusing on moderators has not been very extensive, especially in comparison to the attention the
consequences of job insecurity in general have received. Logically, systematic studies of the role of some workplace
practices, such as possibilities for skill development, job discretion, or managerial practices, are only meagrely treated in
the research literature as possible moderators. Still, according to Büssing‟s (1999) and Barling&Kelloway‟s (1996) results,
although both are based on relatively limited material, control at work and advanced managerial practices (Guthenberg,
2011) turned out to be a moderator between job insecurity and its consequences. Gallie (2007), using representative
survey data on the EU area, has also demonstrated parallel results concerning the links between the quality of work and
job insecurity.
THE QUESTION
In the present paper, our main aim is not to replicate the studies on the connections between job insecurity and
well-being or organizational attitudes. Instead, we follow a research track focusing on moderators; our aim is to
contribute the discussion on external resources as possible buffers between job insecurity and the decline in well-
being. In this sense, we investigate three work-related dimensions: fair treatment at work, developed supervision
practices and development possibilities at work. In different forms, the first two aspects are relatively often used
in this type of investigation.
With the third aspect, we enlarge the moderator logic in the direction of development possibilities at work. There
is already evidence that high employability, i.e. a low dependency on the current work and / or high labour
market resources soften the consequences of job insecurity. As a rule, the definition of employability has been
based on the employees‟ own estimation about their labour market resources. This time, we are going to
approach this issue from somewhat different angle. Our aim is to test whether development opportunities
moderate the link between job insecurity and well-being. Our basic interest is not only in a new formulation of
employability, but to focus more on understanding the main source of job security. The traditional way is to
underline legal protection as a key source of security. Still, the more modern version highlights the quality of
work as a source of security; jobs which give possibilities for skilldevelopment are at the same time those which
enable employability and thus increase resources in the turbulent labour market (Alasoini, 2006). The logic is
directly rooted in the ideas of developmental work in general (Alasoini, 2011).
Our starting point is a hypothesis: fair treatment at work, developed supervision practices and development
possibilities at work can protect the well-being of employees even in insecure situations.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
The study is based on a representative sample (n= 2 252) of Finnish wage and salary earners. The data were
collected using a postal survey during the winter of 2010–2011. The data gathering was done in co-operation
with Statistics Finland; respondents were recruited among employed wage and salary earners participating in the
Labour Force Survey (LFS). 73 per cent agreed to receive the questionnaire and 73 per cent of them (n = 2 252)
returned the survey.
Despite a slight overrepresentation of women (59%), the data basically depicts Finnish wage and salary earners
adequately,for example, in the terms of age (mean 44, sd. 12), education (12% have only a basic education) and
type of contract (11% fixed-term and 13% part-time employees).

3. 3
In the analyses, we divide job insecurity into two dimensions: cognitive and affective job insecurity (C-JI and A-
JI).
C-JI was measured with two questions: „How large do you consider the risk that you will lose your job in the next
12 months?‟ and “How large do you consider the risk of being among the first to go in the event of a lay-off at
your workplace?” In both cases, the alternatives„(1) Very large‟, „(2) Quite large‟, „(3) Neither large nor small‟, „(4)
Quite small‟ and „(5) Very small‟ were used. Later, participants who chose “1” or “2” in either of the questions
were defined as belonging to the group of high C-JI (n= 425, 19%).
A-JI was judged by the question “Howworriedare you thatyou mightlose your currentjob?” The participants
could choose between four alternatives (from “Very worried” to “Not worried at all”). In the analyses, the two
highest scores indicated high A-JI (n= 216, 10%).
The main outcome variable of the analyses is stress. It was measured by a single-item measure for
stress symptoms: “Stress means a situation in which a person feels tense, restless, nervous or anxious or is unable
to sleep at night because his/her mind is troubled all the time. Do you feel this kind of stress these days?” The
response was recorded from 1 “not at all” to 5 “very much” (about the validity of the measure, see Elo et al.
2003). The two highest scores were defined to indicate ahigh stress level (n= 303, 14%).
Three dimensions of workplace-related practices, fair treatment at work, supervision practices and developing
possibilities at current work were treated as possible moderators. The measurement of fair treatment is based on
the instrument developed by Moorman (1999). Evaluations were based on five statements (e.g. to procedures
designed to collect accurate information for making decisions, provide opportunities to appeal or challenge the
decision, generate standards so that decisions could be made with consistency, see ibid. p. 850) using a scale from
1 “totally agree” to 5 “totally disagree”. The values of the sum variable vary between 5 and 25 (alpha 0.88). The
evaluations of fair treatment were dichotomized so that the lowest quartile (n= 585, 26%) represents the
participants reporting broadly fair treatment at work.
Respectively, supervision practices were gauged (following Lehto&Sutela 2009) by five items (superior listens
his/her employees, supports and encourages, rewards good work performances, superior trusts his/her
employees, encourages his/her subordinates to study and develop in their work),with the answers varying
between 1 “totally agree” and 5 “totally disagree”. The scale of the sum variable varied between 5 and 25 (alpha
0.88). The evaluations of supervision practices were dichotomized so that the lowest quartile (n= 635, 28%)
represents employees reporting developed supervision practices.
The third possible moderator was „possibilities for skill development in the current job‟. It was measured by a
sum variable (alpha 0.83) consisting of three items investigating the opportunities for personal development and
learning in the current work, as well as opportunities of occupational education. The statements were evaluated
by using the scale from 1 (indicating the best opportunities) to 5 (indicating the lowest opportunities). The
opportunities for skill development were dichotomized in a way that the lowest quartile (n= 464, 21%)
represents employees with extensive development possibilities.
Later, the expression “developed workplace practices” refers to the situations characterised by developed supervision
practices, broad fair treatment at workand extensive development possibilities.
Age (mean 44 ), gender (men n= 911, 41%), industry (manufacturing n= 474, 21%, private services n= 918,
42%, public services n= 808, 37%), socio-economic status (blue-collar workers n= 598, 27%, lower white collar
workers n= 969, 43%, upper white-collar workers n= 678, 30%), education (primary n= 260, 11%, secondary n=
941 42%, tertiary n= 1051 47%) were used as background variables.
The chi-squared test and logistic regression were used for data analysis. The chi-squared test was employed in the
first, descriptive analyses. The connections between high stress, job insecurities and workplace practices were
examined by using binary logistic regression analysis, the odds ratio (OR) and confidence interval (CI). In order
to clarify the role of workplace practices as (possible) moderators, we proceeded to test the significance of the
interactions between C-JI and A-JI and the practices.

4. 4
RESULTS
Tables 1 and 2 outline the prevalence of job insecurities, high stress levels and developed workplace practices in
the light of background variables.
The risk of high job insecurity tends to increase together with low socio-economic status and a low level of
education. In manufacturing, the evaluations of high job insecurity are more common than in the service sector –
regardless of the employer type. Whereas evaluations of high A-JI did not follow age, high C-JI is unambiguously
concentrated in young age groups. Furthermore, women report C-JI more often than men. (See table 1.)
The structural background of high stress is to some extent opposed to that of job insecurity. Thus, a high stress
level is most often found within the groups with a high education and higher social status.In addition, this risk is
higher among women. (See table 1.)
Table 1.Frequency distributions (%) of high stress levels, high cognitive job insecurity (C-JI) and affective job
insecurity (A-JI) by background variables (gender, age, industry, socio-economic status and the level of
education).
High
Stress level C-JI A-JI
TOTAL 14% (n= 303) 20% (n= 425) 10% (n= 216)
Gender
Male 11 17 10
Female 15 20 10
p-value 0.005 0.03 ns
Age
-29 17 29 10
30-39 13 20 10
40-49 12 15 9
50- 14 17 7
p-value ns <0.001
Industry
Manufacturing 12 22 14
Private services 15 18 9
Public services 13 17 8
p-value ns ns 0.002
Socio-economic status
Blue collar 10 24 13
Lower White 14 19 9
Upper White 17 15 8
p-value 0.001 <0.001 0.009
Education
Primary 14 21 14
Secondary 11 22 11
Tertiary 16 16 7
p-value 0.004 0.001 <0.001
Age and gender are not connected to the evaluations of workplace practices. Nevertheless, social status is related
to good development possibilities and developed supervision practices; both of which are more common among
participants with a higher social status and better education. (See table 2.)

5. 5
Table 2. The frequency distribution (%) of developed workplace practices by background variables.
Developed supervision
practices
Broadly fair treatment at
work
Extensive development
possibilities
TOTAL 28 % (n= 635) 27 % (n= 585) 21 % (n= 464)
Gender
Male 28 28 20
Female 29 27 21
p-value ns ns ns
Age
<29 33 33 26
30-39 30 25 24
40-49 27 26 22
50- 26 28 16
p-value ns ns ns
Socio-economic status
Blue collar 24 26 13
Lower White 26 28 18
Upper White 34 27 31
p-value <0.001 ns <0.001
Education
Primary 28 33 9
Secondary 27 28 18
Tertiary 30 25 26
p-value ns 0.044 <0.001
Developed workplace practices and job insecurities turned out to have strong mutual relationships with each
other. Employees working under high job insecurity less frequently reporthigh development possibilities, good
supervision practices or fair treatment (See figure 1).

6. 6
Tables 3 and 4 display the connections between stress, two dimensional job insecurity and workplace practices
(supervision practices, opportunities for personal development and fair treatment at work). Basically, the results
follow our expectations: even after adjustment, the connection between high job insecurity (both A-JI and C-JI)
and high stress is indisputable; employees reporting high job insecurity also give accounts of high stress more
often. In addition, non-optimal scores for supervision practices and fair treatment at work are connected with
high stress. However, the corresponding link was not found in evaluations considering development possibilities.
15
30
21
30
19
28
25
28
11
22
15
22
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
High Aj-JI Low A-JI High C-JI Low C-JI
Figure 1. Evaluations of developed workplace practices in different job
insecurity groups (percent proportions, C-JI= congnitive job insecurity, A-JI
affective job insecurity)
Supervision practices
Fair treatment
Development possibilities

7. 7
Table 3.Logistic regression modeling of belonging to the high stress group in relation to cognitive job insecurity
and workplace practices (3A supervision, 3B fair treatment, 3C development possibilities).Odds ratios (OR) and
95 per cent confidence intervals (95% CI), and the significances of the interactions in C-JI*developed workplace
practices. Models adjusted for age, gender, industry, socio-economic status and education.
Number of individuals Odds ratios and 95%
confidence interval
3A
Cognitive job insecurity
Low 1748 1
High 405 1.98 (1.49-2.64)
Supervision practices
Non-optimal 1547 1
Developed 606 0.72 (0.54-0.97)
C-JI* supervision practices ns
3B
Cognitive job insecurity
Low 1666 1
High 376 2.02 (1.51-2.72)
Fair treatment
Non-optimal 1488 1
Broad 554 0.68 (0.50-0.92)
C-JI*fair treatment ns
3C
Cognitive job insecurity
Low 1748 1
High 405 1.98 (1.49-2.64)
Development possibilities
Non-optimal 1711 1
Extensive 442 0.74 (0.53-1.04)
C-JI*development possibilities ns

8. 8
Table 4. Logistic regression modelling of belonging to the high stress group in relation to affective job insecurity
and workplace practices (4A supervision, 4B fair treatment, 4C development possibilities). Odds ratios (OR) and
95 per cent confidence intervals (95% CI), and the significances of the interactions C-JI*developed workplace
practices. Models adjusted for age, gender, industry, socio-economic status and education.
Number of individuals Odds ratios and 95%
confidence interval
4A
Affective job insecurity
Low 1949 1
High 204 2.63 (1.86-3.73)
Supervision practices
Non-optimal 1547 1
Developed 606 0.74 (0.55-0.99)
A-JI* supervision practices 0.038
4B
Affective job insecurity
Low 1849 1
High 193 2.47 (1.71-3.55)
Fair treatment
Non-optimal 1448 1
Broad 554 0.70 (0.51-0.95)
A-JI*fair treatment ns
4C
Affective job insecurity
Low 1949 1
High 204 2.66 (1.86-3.73)
Development possibilities
Non-optimal 1711 1
Extensive 442 0.76 (0.55-1.05)
A-JI*development possibilities ns
Our main purpose was not to replicate the results underlining the connection between high insecurity and stress
or poor management. Instead, our aim was to test whether the links between job insecurities and stress depend
on workplace practices, i.e. whether developed practices can moderate the connection. Keeping this in mind, we
continued the logistic regression with the studies of the interactions. As can be seen (see tables 3 and 4), most of
the cases did not support our initial hypothesis; the connection between job insecurity and stress turned out to
be independent of the nature of workplace practices. This was outstandingly obvious in the case of C-JI.
However, the situation was different with A-JI (Table 4A). Developed supervision practices seemed to moderate
the link between A-JI and stress; the interaction between different evaluations of supervision practices and A-JI
was statistically significant (p= 0.038). A closer look specified the difference: in the sub-group where the
assessments of supervision practices were sub-optimal, the odds ratio for high stress between low and high A-JI
was 2.95 (2.00-4.22). In this respect, among those who evaluated supervision in optimal terms, the rate (OR 0.62,
0.14-2.78) was not statistically significant, i.e. the high A-JI was not connected with high stress.
CONCLUSION
The motive of this paper is to continue the debate (see for exampleChirumbolo A. &Areni A., 2010;Guthenberg,
J., 2011)on the possibilities of controlling the well-documented negative effects of job insecurity in situations
where there are obvious limits in formal regulation of the employment contracts as a guarantee of work security.
Basically, the present study confirmed that job insecurity has a detrimental effect on well-being; stress levels were
significantly higher among participants with job insecurity. The effect is equal both with cognitive (the risk of job
loss) and affective dimensions (the degree of worry about job loss) of job insecurity.

9. 9
The main goal of our study was to test whether the good workplace practices (fair treatment at work, developed
supervision practices and development possibilities at work) can moderate the link between high stress and job
insecurity. Empirical evidence, based on a representative sample of Finnish wage and salary earners, provided
only partial support for the hypothesis. Buffer effects were not found in regard to fair treatment and
development possibilities at work. However, the connections between stress, affective job insecurity and
developed supervision practices supported the hypothesis: the risk of high stress under affective job insecurity
was significantly low among employees who simultaneously reported developed supervision practices. The
results are in the line with the conclusions of Guthenberg (2011). With respect to cognitive insecurity, the parallel
connection did not occur.
The results underline the established connection between management and the well-being of employees. The
novelty of the present result emphasizes the importance of this link in the situation where the continuity of the
job is also under threat. However, the reasons why the dimension close to employability
(developmentpossibilities at work) in particular cannot operate as a buffer merits further attention.
REFERENCES
Alasoini, T. (2006). Työnteon mielekkyys uhattuna?Kohti uutta psykologista sopimusta? Työelämän tutkimus, 4,
122–136.
Alasoini, T. (2011).Workplace Development as Part of Broad-based Innovation Policy: Exploiting and Exploring
Three Types of Knowledge.Nordic Journal of Working Life Studies1(1), pp. 23–43,
(http://ej.lib.cbs.dk/index.php/nordicwl/article/view/3311).
Atkinson, J. (1984). Manpower Strategies for Flexible Organizations, Personnel Management, 16, 28-31.
Barling, J. & E. Kelloway (1996). Job Insecurity and Health: The Moderating Role of Workplace Control. Stress
Medicine 12, 253-259
Beck, U. (2000).The Brave New World of Work. Cambridge (UK): Polity Press.
Büssing A. (1999) Can control at work and social support moderate psychological consequences of job insecurity?
Results from a quasi-experimental study in the steel industry.European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology
8(3): 219–242.
Chirumbolo A. &Areni A. (2005). The influence of job insecurity on job performance and absenteeism: The
moderating role of work attitudes. Journal of Industrial Psychology 31(4): 65–71.
Chirumbolo A. &Areni A. (2010).Job insecurity influence on job performance and mental health: Testing the
moderating effect of the need for closure. Economic and Industrial Democracy 31(2) 195–214.
Cheng, G. & Chan, D. (2008). Who suffers more from job insecurity? A meta analytic review. Applied Psychology: An
International Review, 57, 272–303.
Felstead, A., Burchell, B. & Green, F. (1998).Insecurity at work. Is job insecurity really much worse now than before?
New Economy, 5, 180–184.
Fullerton, A.S. & Wallace (2006). Traversing the flexible turn: US workers‟ perceptions of job security, 1977–
2002.Social Science Research. 36, 201–221.
Gallie, D. (2007). Task Discretion and Job Quality. In D. Gallie (ed.): Employment Regimes and the Quality of Work.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 105-136.
Goslinga, S., Hellgren, J., Chirumbolo, A., De Witte, H., Näswall, K. &Sverke, M. (2005). The role of union support in
coping with job insecurity: A study among union members from three European countries. SA Journal of Industrial
Psychology, 2005, 31 (4), 72-78.
Green, F. (2009). Subjective employment insecurity around the world. Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 2,
pages 343-363.
Greenhalgh, L., & Rosenblatt, Z. (1984). Job insecurity: Toward conceptual clarity. Academy of Management Review, 9,
438–448.
Guthenberg, J. (2011) Kan ett utvecklande ledarskap dämpa anställningsotrygghetens negativa
hälsoeffekter?Arbetsmarknad&Arbetsliv (17):1 37-53.
Lehto, A. &Sutela, H. (2009). Three decades of working conditions: findings of Finnish Quality of Work Life Surveys
1977-2008. Helsinki: Statistic Finland.
Lim. V. (1996). Job insecurity and its outcomes: Moderating effects of work-based and nonwork-based social
support. Human Relations 49: 171–194.

10. 10
Moorman, R. H.( 1991). Relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship behaviors: do
fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship?Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 845–855.
OECD (1997). Is Job Insecurity on the Increase in OECD Countries?. OECD Employment Outlook, 129–159.
Sennett, R. (2006). The culture of the New Capitalism. New Haven & London: Yale University Press.
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., &Naswall K. (2002). No security: a meta-analysis and review of job insecurity and its
consequences. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 7, 242–64.
de Witte, H. (2005). Job Insecurity: Review of the International Literature on Definitions, Prevalence, Antecedents
and Consequences. Journal of Industrial Psychology, 31, 1-6.