Journal of Business Research 128 (2021) 211–221

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Business Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jbusres

How employment relationship types influence employee work outcomes:

The role of need for status and vigor
Jinyun Duan a, Alessandro M. Peluso b, Linhan Yu c, *, Massimo Pilati d
a
School of Psychology and Cognitive Science, East China Normal University, Shanghai 200062, PR China
b
Department of Management and Economics, University of Salento, Via per Monteroni, 73100 Lecce, Italy
c
Department of Psychology and Behavioral Sciences, Zhejiang University, Tianmushan Road, 148, 310028 Hangzhou, PR China
d
Marco Biagi Department of Economics, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Via Jacopo Berengario, 51, 41121 Modena, Italy

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The use of temporary employment has increased in China, but few studies to date have analyzed the outcomes of
Permanent/temporary employment the employment relationship type (permanent vs. temporary) from the perspective of psychological compensa­
relationship tion. In this study, we examine the moderating effect of employees’ need for status on their responses to an
Vigor
organization’s permanent versus temporary employment relationship practices. Based on symbolic self-
Need for status
Symbolic self-completion
completion theory, we hypothesize that, compared to those with a permanent employment relationship, em­
ployees with a temporary employment relationship exhibit higher levels of vigor when they have a higher (vs.
lower) need for status. Furthermore, we hypothesize that higher levels of vigor motivate employees to work
better and voice more. A survey study conducted in China with 303 employees and their managers from
governmental organizations and state-owned enterprises provides support for these hypotheses. The paper
concludes with a discussion of theoretical and practical implications.

1. Introduction the inducement levels of the organization match contribution levels of

employees. There are also two unbalanced forms: over-investment and
Employment relationship frameworks provide a universal perspec­ under-investment, which arise when organizations’ inducements cannot
tive for scholars to explore the relationship between human resource match the contributions of workforce. In addition, numerous studies
management (HRM) systems and employee work outcomes (Coyle- have explored the consequences of different types of employment re­
Shapiro & Kessler, 2000; Coyle-Shapiro, Shore, Taylor, & Tetrick, 2004; lationships in terms of employee performance (Batt, 2002), employee
Shaw, Dineen, Fang, & Vellella, 2009; Zhang, Song, Tsui, & Fu, 2014). turnover (Shaw et al., 2009), employee affective commitment (Demer­
Over the recent decades, the study of employment relationships has outi, Bakker, Nachreiner, & Schaufeli, 2001), employee well-being/
developed substantially and undergone extensive changes (Cai & Wang, health condition (De Cuyper & De Witte, 2008; Helgadóttir, Svedberg,
2010; Rubery, Earnshaw, Marchington, Cooke, & Vincent, 2002; Shore, Mather, Lindfors, Bergström, & Blom, 2018; Tompa, Scott-Marshall, &
Tetrick, Lynch, & Barksdale, 2006; Tsui, Pearce, Porter, & Tripoli,1997). Fang, 2008), and firm competitiveness (Lopez-Cabrales & Valle-Cabrera,
Indeed, the past few decades have witnessed several reforms in different 2020; Wang, Tsui, Zhang, & Ma, 2003). Most of the empirical work
countries, including China, which has one of the world’s largest labor addressing employee-organization relationships rests on the theoretical
markets (Tsui & Wang, 2002). Such reforms have prompted academic mechanism of social exchange, which suggests that employees’ out­
research and managerial practice to pay more attention to how comes mainly depend on how they are treated by their organizations
employment relationships influence work outcomes. (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005; Homans, 1958).
The extant literature has identified the different types of employment One of the most relevant changes deriving from recent labor market
relationships, which depend on two primary components: expected reforms is the increasing flexibility of employment relationships
contributions and offered inducements (Tsui et al., 1997). Quasi-spot (Chambel & Castanheira, 2006). More and more organizations are
contracts and mutual-investment contracts are balanced forms because willing to provide temporary jobs or other nonstandard types of

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (J. Duan), [email protected] (A.M. Peluso), [email protected], [email protected] (L. Yu),
[email protected] (M. Pilati).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.01.051
Received 6 May 2020; Received in revised form 25 January 2021; Accepted 28 January 2021
Available online 21 February 2021
0148-2963/© 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
J. Duan et al. Journal of Business Research 128 (2021) 211–221

employment relationships (Flickinger, Allscher, & Fiedler, 2016; Jiang a rigid process to a more market-driven system. However, in some
& Li, 2015). Temporary employment relationships are strongly associ­ countries still constrained by traditional institutions and culture, like
ated with low-cost employment systems and competitiveness; indeed, China, many organizations still supply lifetime jobs and cradle-to-grave
compared to permanent employment relationships, temporary employ­ welfares to employees while demanding small productivity with limited
ment relationships often provide lower wages and poorer working responsibilities, especially among the public sectors (Tsui & Wang,
conditions (Garz, 2013). Based on social exchange theory, temporary 2002). Therefore, although in these countries a traditional permanent
employment relationships cannot demand sizeable contributions of employment model continues to be a standard of reference, there has
employees and lack of attraction in the workplace. However, scholars been a substantial growth in temporary employment relationships.
argue that individual differences among employees may influence how Understanding how permanent versus temporary employment re­
they respond to the employment policies of their organizations. For lationships influence employees’ work outcomes is important. Prior
example, research on psychological contracts pays attention to in­ literature shows that temporary, compared to permanent, employment
dividuals’ beliefs about mutual obligations (Morrison & Robinson, 1997; relationships are more likely to be associated with psychological con­
Robinson & Morrison, 2000). Consequently, employees and their co­ tracts containing few mutual promises (De Jong, Schalk, & De Cuyper,
workers may hold different views on how they are treated by their su­ 2009). In addition, temporary employment relationships negatively
pervisors and organizations (Coyle-Shapiro & Kessler, 2000). Cross- impact employees’ job satisfaction, job security and organizational
cultural research suggests that employees from different cultural con­ support (De Jong et al., 2009; Lapalme, Stamper, Simard, & Tremblay,
texts may have differing values that affect their responses to HRM 2009; Roca-Puig, Beltrán-Martín, & Segarra-Cipres, 2012).
practices (Zhang et al., 2014). Research on public service motivation Although many scholars suggest that temporary employment re­
also suggests that economic and developmental rewards are not the only lationships are linked to individual and organizational outcomes,
factor to induce employees to contribute to the organization (Vande­ empirical research focusing on temporary employment relationships is
nabeele, Brewer, & Ritz, 2014). Thus, from the perspective of individual still lacking, especially in China (De Cuyper, De Jong, De Witte, Isaks­
differences, employees may perceive and react to permanent versus son, Rigotti, & Schalk, 2008; Jiang & Li, 2015). To address this gap, we
temporary employment relationships in different and possibly opposite want to explore how permanent versus temporary employment re­
ways. lationships impact organizational behaviors with Chinese governmental
In the present study, we contribute to this stream of research by employees.
investigating the role of certain individual differences in explaining the
impact of employment relationship types on employees’ work outcomes. 2.2. The interaction between employment relationship and need for status
Specifically, based on the theory of symbolic self-completion (Gollwit­
zer, Wicklund, & Hilton, 1982; Wicklund & Gollwitzer, 1981), we pro­ Employee vigor refers to the levels of energy, resilience and moti­
pose that employees’ need for status, that is, an internal need for a vation that lead employees to undertake certain activities in the work­
higher social status in the social hierarchy, moderates the effect of place (Schaufeli, Bakker, & Salanova, 2006). It involves a unique
employment relationship type (permanent vs. temporary) on em­ combination of vitality and arousal, which increases employees’
ployees’ in-role performance and extra-role behaviors (voice). We pre­ responsiveness to environmental stimuli to a greater extent than a
dict that, in the presence of a temporary (vs. permanent) employment general trait affect (Ashkanasy, 2003). According to the broaden-and-
relationship, employees with a higher need for status at the workplace, build theory of positive emotion (Fredrickson, 2001), vigor can be
compared to those with a lower level of this need, exhibit greater vigor, seen as a positive affective state that helps employees to foster a more
which in turn increases their job performance and voice behavior. proactive work style and to be more sensitive to opportunities at work.
This research makes three distinct contributions. First, despite the Leadership behaviors, work-related flow, off-job activities and HRM
widespread use of temporary employment, current research has practices could be factors that predict employees’ vigor (Carmeli, Ben-
explored little about why and how this employment relationship type Hador, Waldman & Rupp, 2009; Demerouti, Bakker, Sonnentag, &
affects employees’ performance and behavior. By investigating a sample Fullagar, 2012; Runhaar, Konermann, & Sanders, 2013; Ten Brummel­
of Chinese workers, we provide evidence that, under certain conditions, huis & Bakker, 2012). Previous research also suggests that vigor could
a temporary as opposed to permanent employment relationship can encourage employees to be more involved in work tasks and could
increase employees’ vigor and thus their job performance and voice. enhance their overall work performance (Carmeli et al., 2009; Shirom,
Second, we found that employees’ need for status in the workplace can 2007).
affect employees’ response to their employee-organization relation­ Based on previous literature, temporary employment relationships
ships. Humans are innately driven to seek social status, as higher levels may be negatively associated with employees’ vigor. Temporary
of status can bring more advantages and have fewer psychological employment relationships provide limited resources for training and
constraints than lower levels of status (Harsanyi, 1980; Magee & professional development (Connelly & Gallagher, 2004), which is a
Galinsky, 2008; Maner & Kenrick, 2010; McClean, Martin, Emich, & situation that is incompatible with the basic notion that vigor is derived
Woodruff, 2018). However, few studies have explored whether need for from opportunities for professional development and training (Runhaar
status moderates employment relationship effects. Our research en­ et al., 2013). Moreover, temporary employment relationships are
riches the literature in this field. Third, we contribute to the literature on traditionally associated with low-quality work relationships and
vigor. Some scholars found that certain HRM practices are associated employee job insecurity (Byoung-Hoon & Frenkel, 2004; De Jong et al.,
with vigor, which leads to better job performance (Matthijs, Kooij, & De 2009), other situations that could harm employees’ vigor at work
Jong, 2013; Van De Voorde, Veld, & Van Veldhoven, 2016). We expand (Shirom, 2007; Carmeli et al., 2009). However, this traditional view has
the current knowledge in this area by examining some boundary con­ not considered individual differences among employees, which may
ditions of this relationship, namely, types of employment relationship influence how they respond to the different types of employment rela­
and need for status. tionship. In this research, we propose that temporary employment re­
lationships can increase, rather than decrease, employees’ vigor under
2. Theory and hypotheses some circumstances. Furthermore, we propose that such circumstances
are determined by the employees’ level of need for status, an individual
2.1. Permanent versus temporary employment relationship and employee difference that captures the extent to which employees desire to be
work outcomes admired and respected at the workplace.
Indeed, social status is highly salient and greatly important in social
In the past few decades, HRM practices have been moving away from and organizational contexts and is associated with many work outcomes

212
J. Duan et al. Journal of Business Research 128 (2021) 211–221

(Chen, Peterson, Phillips, Podolny, & Ridgeway, 2012; McClean et al., the relationship (Ames & Johar, 2009). As a positive affective state,
2018; Roberson, Galvin, & Charles, 2007). Social status refers to the vigor can convey information about positive self-definition for em­
respect and admiration that an individual has in the eyes of others ployees who have a high need for status in social interactions. Super­
(Blader & Chen, 2011) and is positively associated with self-image visors and coworkers can acquire related information about self-
(Kennedy, Anderson, & Moore, 2013). There are many behaviors that definition through the vigor of an employee. Finally, an individual’s
have their roots in people’s need for status, as individuals who have high affect provides information about how to adapt to an environment
social status can enjoy a wide range of advantages (e.g., promotion effectively (Schwarz, 2002). Positive feeling states may help employees
opportunity, social approval) (DiPrete & Soule, 1988; McClean et al., attune their attitudes and behaviors to perform better in the workplace
2018; Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). Therefore, scholars consider need for (Liu, Song, Li, & Liao, 2017; Kniffin, Yan, Wansink, & Schulze, 2017).
status to be a fundamental human desire (Anderson, Hildreth, & How­ When employers and peers perceive an employee with a temporary
land, 2015). In summary, we conceptualize employees’ need for status position to be beneficial, they are more likely to support the employee
as a desire for higher social status, respect, and admiration in their (Campbell, Liao, Chuang, Zhou, & Dong, 2017). Therefore, vigor may
organizational hierarchy. Specifically, compared to those with a lower help employees gain respect and admiration. Overall, when employees
level of need for status, employees with a higher level of this need tend with temporary employment relationships seek for fame or position,
to pay more attention to whether they are admired by other people, to be vigor is an appropriate symbol in the workplace.
more sensitive to hierarchical cues in the workplace, and to undertake Based on this discussion, we propose the following hypothesis:
status-enhancing actions.
Hypothesis 1. Employees’ need for status moderates the effect of
Combined with symbolic self-completion theory (George, 1997;
employment relationship type on vigor. Specifically, a temporary (vs.
Gollwitzer, Wicklund, & Hilton, 1982; Wicklund & Gollwitzer, 1981)
permanent) employment relationship increases vigor only when em­
and research regarding temporary employment relationships (De
ployees’ need for status is high rather than low.
Cuyper et al., 2008), we postulate that employees’ need for status in the
workplace can impact their reaction to their employment relationship.
According to symbolic self-completion theory, people use symbols of 2.3. Vigor and employee job performance and voice
attainment to define themselves. The self-completion idea postulates
that, when important indicators of self-definition are lacking, people Vigor is significantly associated with employees’ motivation and
will strive for alternative symbols of self-definition as a kind of psy­ work-related behaviors, such as task behavior, innovative behavior, and
chological compensation (Wicklund & Gollwitzer, 1981). For example, organizational citizenship behavior (Carmeli et al., 2009; Lam, Wan, &
professors with a smaller number of publications and citations displayed Roussin, 2016; Shirom, 2007). Therefore, we argue that vigor is posi­
an increased number of professional titles in their email signatures tively associated with two important employee outcomes, namely: job
compared to professors with higher rates of publication and citation performance (in-role) and voice (extra-role). Regarding job perfor­
(Harmon-Jones, Schmeichel, & Harmon-Jones, 2009). Consistent with mance, vigor is a key catalyst for improving individual task performance
this stream of literature, since temporary employment relationships may and overall performance in the workplace (Carmeli et al., 2009; Shirom,
provide limited resources and are associated with relatively low social 2007). When individuals are vigorous, they often feel positive energy
status (Byoung-Hoon & Frenkel, 2004), we reason that temporary and are motivated to become involved in different tasks (Shirom, 2007).
employment relationships cannot be seen as a symbol of self-definition, As a kind of positive emotion and perception, vigor also tends to persist
which motivates employees to strive for alternative symbols to maintain across domains and to help employees cope with stressors when facing
or enhance self-definition. Conversely, employees with a permanent difficulties (Rusting & DeHart, 2000; Xanthopoulou, Bakker, Demerouti,
position do not need to strive for these alternative symbols, as their & Schaufeli, 2009). Based on Schaufeli et al. (2002), we expect that
employment relationship is more likely to give them the respect that vigor fosters engagement at work and increases employees’ capacity to
they deserve than a temporary employment relationship would. For perform successfully.
example, employees with a permanent employment relationship can In addition, as vigor may be positively associated with job perfor­
acquire higher wages, sufficient welfare, and more development mance, the joint effect of a temporary employment relationship and
training and promotion opportunities, even if they only take the same need for status may be positively associated with job performance.
tasks as their temporary colleagues (Byoung-Hoon & Frenkel, 2004; Essentially, consistent with Ashkanasy’s (2003) suggestion regarding
Hennekam, & Herrbach, 2013; Qian, Li, Song, & Wang, 2020; Wang, the mediating role of positive affect, we posit that vigor mediates the
Cooke & Lin, 2016). Consequently, employees with a permanent posi­ relationship between employment relationship type (permanent vs.
tion get a preferential treatment. temporary) and job performance. However, we expect this mediated
However, when employees’ need for status is high, temporary relationship to be significant only among employees with a higher need
employment relationships cannot align with their requirements. As for status.
temporary employment relationship brings lower social status, em­ Employees’ voice refers to the “promotive behavior that emphasizes
ployees with higher levels of this need are more likely to choose vigor as expression of constructive challenge intended to improve rather than
an alternative symbol of self-definition because vigor can provide psy­ merely criticize” (Van Dyne & LePine, 1998, p. 109). Prior literature
chological compensation to some degree. There are three main reasons suggests that voice is more risky and costly than other forms of orga­
for this proposition. First, Bendersky and Shah (2013) suggested that nizational citizenship behavior (Chamberlin, Newton, & LePine, 2017).
higher levels of need for status are associated with higher performance, When voicing, employees are likely to consider the potential reactions of
and vigor is positively associated with higher performance (Schaufeli, supervisors and coworkers (Burris, 2012; Detert & Edmondson, 2011).
Salanova, Gonzáles-Romá, & Bakker, 2002; Schaufeli et al., 2006; In addition, employees’ decisions as to whether to voice may depend on
Shirom, 2007). In addition, vigor is a positive emotion, and status their perceived level of status (Janssen & Gao, 2015).
significantly predicts the experience of positive emotions (Anderson, Theory and research from various fields suggest that vigor may be
Kraus, Galinsky, & Keltner, 2012; Carmeli et al., 2009). Thus, employees positively related to voice. At first, according to broaden-and-build
with a higher level of vigor are more likely to be perceived as having a theory (Fredrickson, 2001), vigor is a positive affective state that fos­
higher status. In other words, vigor is a significant symbol used to signify ters more proactive work behaviors, and employee voice is a specific
social status. Second, according to the emotion-as-social-information form of proactive behavior (Crant, 2000; Grant & Ashford, 2008). Thus,
model, emotion serves critical interpersonal functions (Keltner & employees are more likely to speak out actively if they have a high level
Haidt, 1999; Van Kleef, 2009), as it conveys information to actors about of vigor. Second, conservation of resources theory (Hobfoll, 2002) sug­
their target’s current feelings, social intentions, and orientation toward gests that employees who are vigorous have more personal resources to

213
J. Duan et al. Journal of Business Research 128 (2021) 211–221

handle stressful circumstances and speak out (Ng & Feldman, 2011). We invited supervisors and their teams who were willing to cooperate
Employees who are vigorous are more likely to believe that their with us from three departments: administrative, finance and personnel.
constructive ideas will be respected and trusted by their supervisors and Permanent and temporary workers completed similar jobs and their
their organizations. As mentioned above, temporary employment re­ official performance evaluation criteria were similar across these de­
lationships often imply lower social status, which may encourage em­ partments. The number of subordinate employees rated by each super­
ployees with high need for status to strive for alternative symbols of self- visor was three. Employees and supervisors were permitted to complete
definition—vigor. Moreover, vigor is positively related to employees’ questionnaires during workday. They were also assured that their re­
voice. Therefore, we expect that the presence of a temporary (vs. per­ sponses were confidential and anonymous, as well as that the data were
manent) employment relationship and a need for status interact to being collected only for research purposes and would have not be
encourage vigor, which in turn increases employees’ voice. revealed to their coworkers or managers.
Considering these arguments together, we propose the following The data collection was organized in three stages. During stage 1,
hypotheses: employees answered questions about their employment relationship,
need for status, and socio-demographics. During stage 2, approximately
Hypothesis 2a. Vigor is positively related to employees’ job
a month later, employees answered questions about vigor. During stage
performance.
3, a month after stage 2, line supervisors completed surveys about 3
Hypothesis 2b. Vigor mediates the effect exerted by the interaction subordinates’ job performance and voice. The response rate for the study
between temporary (vs. permanent) employment relationship and need was 81% (303 valid questionnaires were obtained in the end). The final
for status on employees’ job performance. sample comprised 211 employees with permanent employment re­
lationships and 92 employees with temporary employment relation­
Hypothesis 3a. Vigor is positively related to employees’ voice.
ships. Their average age was 29.62 years (SD = 7.13), and 117 of them
Hypothesis 3b. Vigor mediates the effect exerted by the interaction were male. The average tenure was 3.48 years (SD = 4.54), and 62.1% of
between temporary (vs. permanent) employment relationship and need the surveyed employees held a bachelor’s degree or higher. As sum­
for status on employees’ voice. marized in Table 1, the two groups of permanent and temporary em­
ployees were comparable in average age and gender distribution.
Fig. 1 displays a conceptual model that summarizes the proposed
Instead, the surveyed permanent employees, on average, were more
research hypotheses.
educated (68% of them reported an education level higher than a
bachelor’s degree) than their temporary counterparts (48%). The
3. Methodology
average tenure of the surveyed permanent employees (3.94 years) was
significantly higher than that of their temporary counterparts (2.42
3.1. Sample and data collection
years).
Data were collected in the region of the Yangtze River Delta of China
3.2. Measures
from governmental organizations and state-owned enterprises. The
organizational setting offered an advantage for testing our model
3.2.1. Permanent/Temporary employment relationship
because the Yangtze River Delta is a highly developed region, and the
We asked respondents to report their employment relationships.
pressure exerted by fierce market competition requires more efficient
Contract workers, temporary agency workers, and trainees were classi­
management approaches. However, the traditional permanent employ­
fied as employees with a temporary employment relationship (De Jong
ment system of public sectors has brought a great financial burden and
et al., 2009). Permanent staff members were classified as employees
could not effectively motivate the staff members (Tsui & Wang, 2002).
with a permanent employment relationship. This variable was effect
Therefore, the central government has issued a series of policies to
coded by assigning a value of − 1 for respondents with a permanent
require an employment reform of the local public sectors. In response to
employment relationship and a value of 1 for those with a temporary
the demand for reform, there are many public organizations and state-
employment relationship.
owned enterprises that must build flexible employment systems.
Nowadays, most of public organizations and state-owned enterprises are
3.2.2. Need for status
allowed to adopt a variety of temporary employment types (such as
Respondents rated their need for status using seven items drawn
contract workers). In addition, these organizations also retained per­
from Manhardt (1972), each of which were assessed on a five-point
manent employment relationships. As a result, we can compare the
Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). Sample items
different effects of employment relationships in the same context.
are “In my job, I want to be respected by other people” and “In my job, I
We invited 372 employees and their line supervisors from 66 orga­
want to be advanced to high administrative responsibility” (Cronbach’s
nizations to complete surveys in three stages. Our research team invited
α = 0.89) (see Appendix for a full list of items).
organizations (through the authors’ social contacts) that met sampling
requirements (public organizations and state-owned enterprise) and 66
organizations responded to us. The personnel departments of these or­
ganizations provided a limited list of employees with permanent or
temporary employment relationships and their respective supervisors. Table 1
Means, standard deviations, t-tests and χ2-tests for the two groups.
Permanent Temporary
employees (N employees (N
Need for status
= 211) = 92)

Variable M (%) SD M (%) SD t(χ2) p

Age 29.96 6.97 28.84 7.45 1.26 0.21

Employment Work outcomes Gender (M/F) (39/ n.a. (38/ n.a. (0.02) 0.89
relationship (Job 61) 62)
Vigor
(permanent vs. performance/ Education (above (68/ n.a. (48/ n.a. (12.24) 0.01
temporary) Voice) bachelor) 32) 52)
Tenure (years) 3.94 4.77 2.42 3.77 2.96 0.00

Fig. 1. Conceptual model. N = 303. n.a. = not applicable.

214
J. Duan et al. Journal of Business Research 128 (2021) 211–221

3.2.3. Vigor voice: CR = 0.95); the coefficient for job performance (CR = 0.65) was
Vigor was rated using three items adapted from Shirom (2003) and barely acceptable considering the recommended threshold (0.70) (For­
assessed on a five-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). nell & Larcker, 1981). The average variance extracted (AVE) indices
Items included “I’m very vigorous at work”, “During the workday I feel were acceptable for all the constructs (need for status: AVE = 0.61;
energetic”, and “I feel I am able to contribute at work” (Cronbach’s α = vigor: AVE = 0.70; voice: AVE = 0.85), while for job performance the
0.89). index (0.47) was close to the recommended threshold (0.50) (Fornell &
Larcker, 1981). Overall, these results suggest an acceptable level of
3.2.4. Job performance convergent validity for the model. Furthermore, based on the inter-
Supervisors rated the job performance of employees using a three- construct correlations summarized in Table 3, we also assessed the
item in-role performance measure, which was drawn from Williams model’s discriminant validity. We indeed checked that, for each
and Anderson (1991) and assessed on a five-point Likert scale (1 = construct, the AVE index was greater than the squared correlations be­
strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). Sample items are “[Subordinate] tween that construct and the other constructs (Fornell & Larcker, 1981).
adequately completes his/her assigned duties” and “[Subordinate] ful­ These results suggest that there are meaningful differences between our
fills the responsibilities specified in his/her job description” (Cronbach’s measures of need for status, vigor, job performance, and voice.
α = 0.64).
3.3.2. Analytical strategy
3.2.5. Employees’ voice All the statistical models were estimated with the software Mplus
Supervisors rated their employees’ voice using six items drawn from 7.0. In our study, subordinates’ performance and voice were rated by
Van Dyne and LePine (1998) and assessed on a five-point scale (1 = each supervisor. To test our hypotheses, we used the “Cluster” and
never, 5 = always). Sample items are “This particular employee speaks “Type = Complex” Mplus syntax to account for nonindependence due to
up in this department with ideas for new projects or changes in pro­ individuals’ clustering within groups (Muthén & Muthén, 2012). We ran
cedures,” and “This particular employee communicates his/her opinions our models following a stepwise approach. First, we ran the main effect
about work issues to others in this department even when his/her models and included interaction effects to examine Hypothesis 1. Sec­
opinion is different and others in the department disagree with him/her” ond, we tested the mediated moderation model, as per Hypotheses 2a-2b
(Cronbach’s α = 0.95). and 3a-3b.

3.2.6. Control variables 4. Results

As it is possible that employees in positions of relative seniority or
with better qualifications might perform well and speak up more at In this section we report the results regarding hypothesis testing.
work, we controlled for the potential effect of socio-demographic vari­ Table 3 presents the means, standard deviations, and correlations of the
ables, such as gender, age, tenure, and education level of employees, variables assessed in this study. To test the moderating effect of need for
which might be related to job performance and voice behavior. status, we conducted regression analyses. We found a nonsignificant
direct relationship between temporary (vs. permanent) employment and
job performance (b = − 0.04, SE = 0.04, p = 0.28, see Table 4, column
3.3. Statistical analysis M7) and between the former variable and voice (b = − 0.04, SE = 0.06, p
= 0.53, see Table 4, column M11). However, there was a significant and
3.3.1. Confirmatory factor analysis positive relationship between temporary (vs. permanent) employment
We built and tested a four-factor measurement model, including the relationship and vigor (b = 0.09, SE = 0.04, p = 0.04, see Table 4, col­
constructs of need for status, vigor, job performance, and voice, which umn M3). The analysis also revealed that the interaction between need
were treated as latent variables measured by their respective items. Fit for status and employment relationship exerted a significant and posi­
statistics were adequate: χ2 = 319.91, df = 146, χ2/df = 2.19, p < 0.001, tive effect on vigor (b = 0.20, SE = 0.06, p < 0.01, see Table 4, column
Comparative Fit Index (CFI) = 0.95, Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) = 0.95, M3), which suggests that need for status moderates the relationship
Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) = 0.06, Standard­ between employment relationship and vigor. The conditional effect of
ized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) = 0.04 (Bentler & Bonett, the type of employment relationship (temporary vs. permanent) on
1980; Hu & Bentler, 1999). Table 2 presents alternative models that had vigor was significant and positive when need for status was high (M +
significantly poorer fitness. 1SD) (effect = 0.22, SE = 0.07, 95% confidence interval [0.09, 0.35])
We also tested the model for convergent and discriminant validity. and nonsignificant when need for status was low (M − 1SD) (effect =
The construct reliability (CR) coefficients for the individual constructs − 0.04, SE = 0.06, 95% confidence interval [− 0.15, 0.07]). The differ­
were satisfactorily high (need for status: CR = 0.90; vigor: CR = 0.89; ence between these two effects was also significant (difference = 0.26,
95% confidence interval [0.08, 0.45]). We found that employees with a
Table 2 temporary employment relationship tend to be more vigorous than
Fit indices. those with a permanent employment relationship when they have a
Model Factors χ2 df Δχ2/Δdf TLI CFI RMSEA higher (vs. lower) need for status. Thus, Hypothesis 1 was supported.
1 Four 319.91 146 0.95 0.95 0.06
Fig. 2 presents the interaction effect.
factors The results summarized in Table 4 (columns M7 and M11) also show
2 Three 396.12 149 76.21/3** 0.93 0.93 0.07 that vigor is positively related to job performance (b = 0.17, SE = 0.05, p
factors < 0.01) and voice behavior (b = 0.26, SE = 0.08, p < 0.01). Taken
3 Two 847.31 151 527.4/5** 0.81 0.79 0.12
together, these results provide initial support for a mediated moderation
factors
4 Single 1869.16 152 1549.25/ 0.48 0.54 0.19 model. Further analyses revealed that the conditional indirect effect of
factor 6** the type of employment relationship (temporary vs. permanent) on job
performance through vigor was significant and positive when need for
N = 303. ** p < 0.01. Four factors: need for status, vigor, job performance, voice;
Three factors: need for status, vigor, job performance + voice; Two factors: need status was high (M + 1SD) (effect = 0.036, SE = 0.017, 95% confidence
for status + vigor, job performance + voice; Single factor: need for status + interval [0.004, 0.069]) and nonsignificant when need for status was
vigor + job performance + voice. Δχ2/Δdf shows the results of the Chi-square low (M − 1SD) (effect = − 0.007, SE = 0.009, 95% confidence interval
difference test between each of the alternative models and the theoretical [− 0.026, 0.011]). Additionally, the difference between these two indi­
four-factor model. rect effects was significant (difference = 0.043, 95% confidence interval

215
J. Duan et al. Journal of Business Research 128 (2021) 211–221

Table 3
Means, standard deviations, and inter-construct correlations.
Variable M SD 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

1. Gender 1.61 0.49

2. Age 29.62 7.13 0.06
3. Education 2.57 0.80 0.19** − 0.19**
4. Tenure 3.48 4.54 0.09 0.63** − 0.13*
5. Empl. relation. − 0.39 0.92 0.01 − 0.07 − 0.16** − 0.15**
6. Need for status 4.16 0.65 − 0.12* − 0.02 0.04 − 0.09 − 0.18** (0.89)
7. Vigor 3.96 0.74 − 0.07 0.11 − 0.09 0.07 0.04 0.34** (0.89)
8. Job perform. 4.05 0.58 0.00 0.09 0.07 − 0.05 − 0.11 0.17** 0.25** (0.64)
9. Voice 3.47 0.87 − 0.01 − 0.02 0.05 − 0.02 − 0.08 0.25** 0.27** 0.45** (0.95)

N = 303. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01. Cronbach’s α coefficients appear in parentheses along the diagonal. Gender: 1 = male, 2 = female. Education: 1 = high school or
below, 2 = associate degree, 3 = bachelor’s degree, 4 = master’s degree or above. Empl. relation. (Employment relationship): − 1 = permanent employment rela­
tionship, 1 = temporary employment relationship.

Table 4
Regression coefficients predicting vigor, job performance, and voice.
Vigor Job performance Voice

Variable M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 M8 M9 M10 M11

Gender 0.02 0.02 0.02 − 0.04* − 0.04* − 0.04* − 0.04* 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00
(0.01) (0.01) (0.01) (0.01) (0.02) (0.02) (0.02) (0.01) (0.01) (0.01) (0.01)
Age 0.01 0.01* 0.01 0.01* 0.01* 0.01* 0.01* 0.00 0.00 0.00 − 0.00
(0.01) (0.01) (0.01) (0.01) (0.01) (0.01) (0.01) (0.01) (0.01) (0.01) (0.01)
Education − 0.09 − 0.10* − 0.10* 0.09* 0.07 0.07 0.09* 0.06 0.04 0.04 0.06
(0.05) (0.05) (0.05) (0.04) (0.04) (0.04) (0.04) (0.07) (0.06) (0.06) (0.06)
Tenure − 0.01 − 0.01 − 0.01 − 0.01* − 0.01 − 0.01 − 0.01 0.01 0.01* 0.01* 0.01**
(0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.01) (0.01) (0.01) (0.01) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00)
Empl. relation. (ER) 0.07 0.09* − 0.03 − 0.03 − 0.04 − 0.02 − 0.02 − 0.04
(0.04) (0.04) (0.04) (0.04) (0.04) (0.06) (0.06) (0.06)
Need for status (NFS) 0.41** 0.38** 0.12 0.11 0.05 0.32** 0.32** 0.22*
(0.06) (0.06) (0.07) (0.07) (0.07) (0.10) (0.10) (0.10)
ER × NFS 0.20** 0.08 0.05 0.07 0.01
(0.06) (0.06) (0.06) (0.09) (0.10)
Vigor 0.17** 0.26**
(0.05) (0.08)
R2 0.03 0.15 0.18 0.28 0.29 0.30 0.32 0.02 0.08 0.08 0.10
(0.02) (0.04) (0.04) (0.10) (0.10) (0.10) (0.10) (0.02) (0.04) (0.04) (0.04)

N = 303. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01. Gender: 1 = male, 2 = female. Education: 1 = high school or below, 2 = associate degree, 3 = bachelor’s degree, 4 = master’s degree
or above. Empl. relation. (Employment relationship): − 1 = permanent employment relationship, 1 = temporary employment relationship. Standard errors are re­
ported in brackets.

0.026, 95% confidence interval [0.005, 0.107]) and nonsignificant

when need for status was low (M − 1SD) (effect = − 0.011, SE = 0.015,
low need for status 95% confidence interval [− 0.040, 0.018]) (see Table 5). The difference
high need for status between these two indirect effects was also significant (difference =
0.067, 95% confidence interval [0.001, 0.134]). These results suggest
4
that vigor mediates the relationship between the interaction term
(employment relationship by need for status) and employee work out­
comes (job performance or voice). Thus, Hypotheses 2a, 2b, 3a, and 3b
3
Table 5
Results of mediated moderation analysis.
2 Independent Dependent Moderator Indirect 95%
variable variable (Need for effect (via Confidence
status) Vigor) interval

Employment Job Low (M − − 0.007 [− 0.026,

1 relationship performance 1SD) 0.011]
Permanent employment Temporary employment (Permanent vs. High (M + 0.036 [0.004,
temporary) 1SD) 0.069]
Difference 0.043 [0.002,
0.085]
Fig. 2. The moderating role of need for status in the relationship between Voice Low (M − − 0.011 [− 0.040,
employment relationship type and vigor. 1SD) 0.018]
High (M + 0.056 [0.005,
[0.002, 0.085]). Likewise, the conditional indirect effect of the type of 1SD) 0.107]
Difference 0.067 [0.001,
employment relationship on voice through vigor was significant and 0.134]
positive when need for status was high (M + 1SD) (effect = 0.056, SE =
N = 303.

216
J. Duan et al. Journal of Business Research 128 (2021) 211–221

were supported. economic advantages because it reduces the overall cost of the
employment system (De Witte & Näswall, 2003; Garz, 2013). Further­
5. General discussion more, we find that a temporary employment relationship can enhance
employees’ performance and encourage employees’ voice if the orga­
In the present study, we moved beyond the preconception that per­ nization hires the right people. Indeed, our findings suggest that some
manent employees may deserve better rewards than temporary em­ employees with a temporary employment relationship may perform
ployees (Byoung-Hoon & Frenkel, 2004; Chambel & Sobral, 2011) by better under specific conditions, even though our results did not provide
investigating when and why temporary employment relationships support for the main effect of temporary employment relationship on job
positively influence work outcomes. In contrast to prior research and performance and voice behavior. Overall, our findings provide one of
conventional wisdom suggesting that temporary employment relation­ the key reasons for why there are so many organizations that adopt
ships are negatively associated with work outcomes (De Jong et al., temporary employment relationships. Thus, we highlight the impor­
2009; Roca-Puig et al., 2012), we found that employees with temporary tance of exploring more of the individual-level benefits of temporary
employment relationships are more vigorous and, as such, are highly employment relationships. However, we acknowledge that permanent
motivated to be involved in work tasks and are more likely to voice employment relationships have distinct advantages in specific organi­
when they have a high rather than low need for status. zational contexts, for example, in terms of job security and organiza­
tional support (De Jong et al., 2009; Lapalme et al., 2009; Roca-Puig
5.1. Theoretical implications et al., 2012). Thus, we are cautious in stating that temporary employ­
ment relationships can be a better solution than permanent employment
This research has several theoretical implications for the streams of relationships, as we should not neglect the negative effects of temporary
literature regarding employment relationships, fundamental needs, employment relationships in reality.
vigor, job performance and voice. Employment relationship research Third, our findings contribute to the literature regarding vigor by
focuses on how and why inducements from the organization motivate testing the mediating role of this construct. Most of the previous studies
employees to work (Bidwell, Briscoe, Fernandez-Mateo, & Sterling, focus on vigor from the perspective of conservation of resources theory.
2013; Tekleab & Taylor, 2003). According to social exchange theory, They consider vigor a kind of work-related energy that is positively
many scholars suggest that temporary employment relationships nega­ associated with daily recovery activities and relational resources (Car­
tively impact work outcomes when inducements cannot match em­ meli et al., 2009; Demerouti, et al., 2012). In this research, we extend the
ployees’ expected contributions from the organization’s perspective (e. prior work on the source of vigor by focusing on self-definition main­
g., Bornay-Barrachina, López-Cabrales, & Valle-Cabrera, 2016; Zhang tenance. We suggest that vigor is not only a kind of work-related energy
et al., 2014). In the majority of the previous research, temporary or resource but also a carrier of social information that conveys mes­
employment relationship is considered unable to help employees sages about self-definition. Consistent with a growing body of work
develop and maintain a positive self-image because this type of rela­ regarding social interactions, which suggests that emotion serves as a
tionship often provides low wages and poor working conditions (e.g., form of communication that influences the social perception of others in
Chen et al., 2012; De Jong et al., 2009; Roca-Puig et al., 2012). However, broader social contexts (Liu et al., 2017; Van Kleef, De Dreu, & Man­
some scholars also found that certain individual differences (e.g., public stead, 2010), our findings shed important light on how affective states
service motivation) can moderate the effect of unsatisfactory working reflect an individual’s values and internal needs. In addition, we
conditions on job performance across countries with different cultural examined the relationship between employment relationship type and
backgrounds, such as South Korea and the United States (Grant, 2008; vigor. Although some scholars found that HRM practices are associated
Jung, Noh, & Kim, 2018). In a similar vein, our findings enrich the with vigor, our results suggest that some individual characteristics, such
literature on the role of individual differences in shaping employees’ as need for status, are critical to determining the impact of certain HRM
reaction to their employment arrangements by showing that, in the practices, often implemented through different employment relation­
presence of a higher (vs. lower) need for status on the part of employees, ship type, on vigor. We also encourage researchers to examine whether
those with a temporary employment relationship are more vigorous and, other HRM practices (e.g., high commitment work systems) could in­
consequently, have better work outcomes, at least in the short term, than fluence the relationship between employment relationships and vigor.
their colleagues with a permanent employment relationship. Such re­ Fourth, our work enriches the literature on job performance and
sults shed new light on the links between temporary employment re­ employee voice. Most of the existing literature focuses on the anteced­
lationships and various work outcomes by focusing on the moderating ents of job performance and voice by using social exchange theory
role of employees’ need for status. (Cohen, Ben-Tura, & Vashdi, 2012), which suggests that excellent per­
Moreover, this research enhances our understanding of symbolic formance and voice are derived from high level of organizations’ in­
self-completion theory. We found that vigor can be an important indi­ ducements (e.g., generous salary). From the perspective of symbolic self-
cator of self-definition, which suggests that affective states can be used completion, our study showed that performance and voice are also
to symbolize self-image. In addition, our results suggest that employ­ derived from psychological compensation.
ment status influences the process of symbolic self-completion in the Finally, this research adds to the existing temporary employment
organization. Although several prior studies highlight the mechanisms relationship literature in the Chinese context or similar transitional
of psychological compensation (Harmon-Jones et al., 2009; Jaikumar, economies. The employment system in China has been undergoing
Singh, & Sarin, 2018; Moav & Neeman, 2012), only few of them have enormous reforms, especially among the government and state-owned
investigated temporary employees’ reaction to their employment ar­ enterprises, but only limited research has focused on this area (Qian
rangements. Our findings explain why junior employees with higher et al., 2020; Tsui & Wang, 2002). Scholars believe that an ideal
levels of need for status may develop a higher motivation to improve employment relationship should match employees’ expected contribu­
their positive self-image, in order to buffer the negative experiences tions and avoid insufficient incentives (Shaw et al., 2009; Tsui et al.,
caused by lower social status, generating a sort of psychological 1997). However, although temporary employment relationships are
compensation. probably affected by poorer working conditions (De Cuyper et al., 2008;
Second, this research also reveals the possibility that temporary Garz, 2013), our results demonstrated that permanent versus temporary
employment relationships, at least in certain organizational and cultural employment relationships cannot predict job performance and
contexts, may have some positive effects on vigor and, through the employee voice. This finding suggests that employees in China may not
latter, on work outcomes such as job performance and voice. Previous only be concerned about the financial rewards from their organization
research shows that a temporary employment relationship can bring but also care about other factors, such as social status or respect.

217
J. Duan et al. Journal of Business Research 128 (2021) 211–221

5.2. Managerial implications term consequences of having many consecutive temporary jobs, which
can negatively affect the employees’ well-being, commitment, job se­
Our study has relevant implications for HRM practices. We showed curity perception, job satisfaction and stress (Agyeiwaa et al., 2015).
that temporary employment relationships may promote employees’ Fourth, the number of employees with a permanent relationship and
performance and voice when they have a high need for status. Therefore, the number of employees with a temporary relationship were unbal­
organizations are advised to consider individual differences when anced in our study. Although we controlled the socio-demographic
developing their employment policy (Rousseau, Ho, & Greenberg, variables and collected data among different industries, the results
2006). According to our research, organizations should assess appli­ may still be slightly biased. The representativeness of the sample and its
cants’ individual need for status before hiring employees under tem­ size may also need to be improved. Compared with state-owned orga­
porary employment relationships. nizations, the difference between permanent employment and tempo­
Furthermore, HR managers need to know how to encourage em­ rary employment may be smaller in private institutions. Future works
ployees with temporary employment relationships to provide could replicate our study with a more balanced and diverse sample of
constructive ideas and to involve them into work activities. Some both temporary and permanent employees. Future studies could also
scholars and commonly held beliefs suggest that employees with a control for the potential effect of socio-economic status of employees (e.
temporary employment relationship tend to perform worse than others g., blue-collar or white-collar employees) or the kind of occupation
(Lapalme et al., 2009; Roca-Puig et al., 2012). This idea may lead to a within their organization.
series of social prejudices and self-fulfilling prophecies. Managers Fifth, we employed line supervisors to rate their subordinates’ job
should do their utmost to reduce such prejudices and guide employees to performance and voice, thus suggesting that employees’ self-completion
find the appropriate self-definition. process can bring real impact on work outcomes. The incentive effects
In addition, considering that our results only regarded some short- may also be underestimated by supervisors because the process is likely
term effects of employment relationship type, one may wonder to be implicit and many other factors affect performance appraisal (such
whether our effects might attenuate or even reverse in the long term. It is as LMX). Future research could consider the combination of self-report
indeed possible that temporary employees with higher levels of need for and others’ evaluation ways to measure this incentive effect more
status ends up feeling exhausted after keeping high levels of vigor for a accurately.
long period of time. To prevent this, HR managers could implement a Finally, we only asked leaders to report on employees’ performance
total reward system, which include not only pay, but also training and and voice; we did not explore other behaviors, such as employees’
development opportunities, as well as positive work environment, and creativity (Alfes, Truss, Soane, Rees, & Gatenby, 2013). Future research
counseling. The implementation of such a HRM strategy may exert a could consider exploring whether temporary relationships and need for
positive influence on job satisfaction, affective commitment, and inno­ status may strengthen employees’ vigor and subsequently impact their
vative behaviors at work (Peluso, Innocenti, & Pilati, 2017). creativity and other extra-role behaviors. In addition, future research
Finally, our results showed the significant role of vigor. Based on this could examine job performance by considering multiple perspectives
finding, we suggest that organizations should invest in training pro­ from leaders and employees and by measuring their behavior more
grams to enable employees with temporary employment relationships to objectively.
find positive indicators of self-definition. More importantly, organiza­
tions and managers should also encourage employees with permanent 6. Conclusion
employment relationships to enhance their vigor in the workplace.
Our study indicates that the employment relationship type of em­
5.3. Limitations and directions for future research ployees and their need for status play a joint role in affecting work
outcomes (performance and voice). The results suggest that temporary
Our research has some limitations that offer opportunities for future (vs. permanent) employment relationships are more likely to influence
studies. First, our data were collected in one region of China; therefore, employees’ outcomes through vigor when those employees have a high
our findings may be not completely generalizable to other geographical need for status. These findings indicate that employment relationship
or cultural contexts, inside and outside of China. Indeed, existing type matters to employees’ performance and voice. This indication un­
research suggests that cultural factors (such as collectivistic orientation derlines the importance of taking a self-completion approach to study
and a high-power distance) can influence work outcomes (House, the connection between employment relationship type and work
Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman, & Gupta, 2004; Ng, Van Dyne, & Ang, 2019; outcomes.
Zhang et al., 2014). Thus, future research could explore whether our
findings can be replicated in other areas and pay more attention to the Funding
moderating effect of organizational climate and regional culture.
Second, although we drew upon symbolic self-completion theory to This research was supported by the National Science Foundation of
theorize vigor as a mediator and a dispositional factor (need for status) China [grant number 72072058].
as a moderator of the relationship between temporary employment re­
lationships and employee work outcomes (performance and voice), Declaration of Competing Interest
future research could further investigate other possible mediating
mechanisms and moderators. It might indeed be possible that other None.
constructs mediate or moderate our effects. For example, temporary (vs.
permanent) employment relationships may energize employees to have Appendix. Measurement scales
a sense of organizational injustice, which in turn may negatively impact
voice for these employees (Whiteside & Barclay, 2013). It is also plau­ Time 1:
sible that temporary employees who are given the opportunity to gain a How are you employed by your current organization?
permanent employment position might feel motivated to work harder as □ Permanent employment (civil service establishment/formal
a result (De Cuyper, Castanheira, De Witte, & Chambel, 2014). Future employee, etc.)
research could explore other mechanisms and provide more causal ev­ □ Temporary employment (contract workers/temporary agency
idence through laboratory experiments or other methods. workers/trainees/probationary)
Third, we focused our study on the benefit of temporary employment Need for status (Manhardt, 1972)
for the organizations. Our study did not consider what can be the long- In my job, I want to be:

218
J. Duan et al. Journal of Business Research 128 (2021) 211–221

1. respected by other people. Blader, S. L., & Chen, Y. R. (2011). What influences how higher-status people respond to
lower-status others? Effects of procedural fairness, outcome favorability, and
2. provided the opportunity to earn a high income.
concerns about status. Organization Science, 22(4), 1040–1060.
3. given the responsibility for taking risks. Bornay-Barrachina, M., López-Cabrales, A., & Valle-Cabrera, R. (2016). How do
4. required working on problems of central importance to the employment relationships enhance firm innovation? The role of human and social
organizations. capital. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 28(9), 1363–1391.
Burris, E. R. (2012). The risks and rewards of speaking up: Managerial responses to
5. advanced to high administrative responsibility. employee voice. Academy of Management Journal, 55(4), 851–875.
6. permitted working independently. Byoung-Hoon, L., & Frenkel, S. J. (2004). Divided workers: Social relations between
7. required supervising others. contract and regular workers in a Korean auto company. Work, Employment and
Society, 18(3), 507–530.
Cai, F., & Wang, M. (2010). Growth and structural changes in employment in transition
Time 2: China. Journal of Comparative Economics, 38(1), 71–81.
Vigor (Shirom, 2003) Campbell, E. M., Liao, H., Chuang, A., Zhou, J., & Dong, Y. (2017). Hot shots and cool
reception? An expanded view of social consequences for high performers. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 102(5), 845–866.
1. I’m very vigorous at work. Carmeli, A., Ben-Hador, B., Waldman, D. A., & Rupp, D. E. (2009). How leaders cultivate
2. During the workday I feel energetic. social capital and nurture employee vigor: Implications for job performance. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 94(6), 1553–1561.
3. I feel I am able to contribute at work. Chambel, M. J., & Castanheira, F. (2006). Different temporary work status, different
behaviors in organization. Journal of Business & Psychology, 20(3), 351–367.
Time 3: Chambel, M. J., & Sobral, F. (2011). Training is an investment with return in temporary
workers: A social exchange perspective. The Career Development International, 16(2),
Job performance (Williams & Anderson, 1991)
161–177.
Chamberlin, M., Newton, D. W., & LePine, J. A. (2017). A meta-analysis of voice and its
1. [Subordinate] adequately completes his/her assigned duties. promotive and prohibitive forms: Identification of key associations, distinctions, and
2. [Subordinate] fulfills the responsibilities specified in his/her job future research directions. Personnel Psychology, 70(1), 11–71.
Chen, Y. R., Peterson, R. S., Phillips, D. J., Podolny, J. M., & Ridgeway, C. L. (2012).
description. Introduction to the special issue: Bringing status to the table—attaining,
3. [Subordinate] achieves the objectives of the job. maintaining, and experiencing status in organizations and markets. Organization
Science, 23(2), 299–307.
Cohen, A., Ben-Tura, E., & Vashdi, D. R. (2012). The relationship between social
Employee voice (Van Dyne & LePine, 1998) exchange variables, OCB, and performance: What happens when you consider group
This particular employee: characteristics? Personnel Review, 41(6), 705–731.
Connelly, C. E., & Gallagher, D. G. (2004). Emerging trends in contingent work research.
Journal of Management, 30(6), 959–983.
1. Speaks up in this department with ideas for new projects or changes Coyle-Shapiro, J., & Kessler, L. (2000). Consequences of the psychological contract for
in procedures. the employment relationship: A large scale survey. Journal of Management Studies, 37
2. Communicates his/her opinions about work issues to others in this (7), 903–930.
Coyle-Shapiro, J., Shore, L., Taylor, M., & Tetrick, L. (2004). Commonalities and conflicts
department even when his/her opinion is different and others in the between different perspectives of the employment relationship: Toward a unified
department disagree with him/her. perspective. In J. Coyle-Shapiro, L. Shore, M. Taylor, & L. Tetrick (Eds.), The
3. Develops and makes recommendations concerning issues that affect employment relationship: Examining psychological and contextual perspectives (pp.
119–134). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
the work group.
Crant, J. M. (2000). Proactive behavior in organizations. Journal of Management, 26(3),
4. Speaks up and encourages others in this group to get involved in 435–462.
issues that affect the group. Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary
5. Keeps well informed about issues where his/her opinion might be review. Journal of Management, 31(6), 874–900.
De Cuyper, N., & De Witte, H. (2008). Volition and reasons for accepting temporary
useful to this work group. employment: Associations with attitudes, well-being, and behavioural intentions.
6. Gets involved in issues that affect the quality of work life here in this European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, 17(3), 363–387.
group. De Cuyper, N., Castanheira, F., De Witte, H., & Chambel, M. J. (2014). A multiple-group
analysis of associations between emotional exhaustion and supervisor-rated
individual performance: Temporary versus permanent call-center workers. Human
Resource Management, 53(4), 623–633.
References 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
Agyeiwaa, D., Owusu, A. D., Oppong, A., Abruquah, L. A., Quaye, I., & Ashalley, E.
Reviews, 10(1), 25–51.
(2015). The impact of temporary staffing agency employment (TSAE) on employee
De Jong, J., Schalk, R., & De Cuyper, N. (2009). Balanced versus unbalanced
performance in China. British Journal of Economics, Management & Trade, 9(2), 1–15.
psychological contracts in temporary and permanent employment: Associations with
Alfes, K., Truss, C., Soane, E. C., Rees, C., & Gatenby, M. (2013). The relationship
employee attitudes. Management and Organization Review, 5(3), 329–351.
between line manager behavior, perceived HRM practices, and individual
De Witte, H., & Näswall, K. (2003). ‘Objective’ vs ‘subjective’ job insecurity:
performance: Examining the mediating role of engagement. Human Resource
Consequences of temporary work for job satisfaction and organizational
Management, 52(6), 839–859.
commitment in four European countries. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 24(2),
Ames, D. R., & Johar, G. V. (2009). I’ll know what you’re like when I see how you feel:
149–188.
How and when affective displays influence behavior-based impressions.
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). The job demands-
Psychological Science, 20(5), 586–593.
resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 499–512.
Anderson, C., Hildreth, J. A. D., & Howland, L. (2015). Is the desire for status a
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Sonnentag, S., & Fullagar, C. J. (2012). Work-related flow
fundamental human motive? A review of the empirical literature. Psychological
and energy at work and at home: A study on the role of daily recovery. Journal of
Bulletin, 141(3), 574–601.
Organizational Behavior, 33(2), 276–295.
Anderson, C., Kraus, M. W., Galinsky, A. D., & Keltner, D. (2012). The local-ladder effect:
Detert, J. R., & Edmondson, A. C. (2011). Implicit voice theories: Taken-for-granted rules
Social status and subjective well-being. Psychological Science, 23(7), 764–771.
of self-censorship at work. Academy of Management Journal, 54(3), 461–488.
Ashkanasy, N. M. (2003). Emotions in organizations: A multi-level perspective. In
DiPrete, T., & Soule, W. (1988). Gender and promotion in segmented job ladder systems.
F. Dansereau, & F. J. Yammarino (Eds.), Multi-level issues in organizational behavior
American Sociological Review, 53(1), 26–40.
and strategy (Research in multi-level issues) (Vol. 2, pp. 9–54). Emerald: Bingley.
Flickinger, M., Allscher, M., & Fiedler, M. (2016). The mediating role of leader–member
Batt, R. (2002). Managing customer services: Human resource practices, quit rates, and
exchange: A study of job satisfaction and turnover intentions in temporary work.
sales growth. Academy of Management Journal, 45(3), 587–597.
Human Resource Management Journal, 26(1), 46–62.
Bendersky, C., & Shah, N. P. (2013). The downfall of extraverts and rise of neurotics: The
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with
dynamic process of status allocation in task groups. Academy of Management Journal,
unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1),
56(2), 387–406.
39–50.
Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the
Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The
analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88(3), 588–606.
broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56, 218–226.
Bidwell, M., Briscoe, F., Fernandez-Mateo, I., & Sterling, A. (2013). The employment
Garz, M. (2013). Unemployment expectations, excessive pessimism, and news coverage.
relationship and inequality: How and why changes in employment practices are
Journal of Economic Psychology, 34, 156–168.
reshaping rewards in organizations. Academy of Management Annals, 7(1), 61–121.
George, M. (1997). Mind, self and society. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

219
J. Duan et al. Journal of Business Research 128 (2021) 211–221

Gollwitzer, P. M., Wicklund, R. A., & Hilton, J. L. (1982). Admission of failure and Qian, X., Li, Q., Song, Y., & Wang, J. (2020). Temporary employment and voice behavior:
symbolic self-completion: Extending Lewinian theory. Journal of Personality and The role of self-efficacy and political savvy. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources,
Social Psychology, 43(2), 358–371. 58(4), 607–629.
Grant, A. M. (2008). Employees without a cause: The motivational effects of prosocial Roberson, L., Galvin, B. M., & Charles, A. C. (2007). When group identities matter: Bias in
impact in public service. International Public Management Journal, 11(1), 48–66. performance appraisal. Academy of Management Annals, 1(1), 617–650.
Grant, A. M., & Ashford, S. J. (2008). The dynamics of proactivity at work. Research in Robinson, S. L., & Morrison, E. W. (2000). The development of psychological contract
Organizational Behavior, 28, 3–34. breach and violation: A longitudinal study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21(5),
Harmon-Jones, C., Schmeichel, B. J., & Harmon-Jones, E. (2009). Symbolic self- 525–546.
completion in academia: Evidence from department web pages and email signature Roca-Puig, V., Beltrán-Martín, I., & Segarra-Cipres, M. (2012). Combined effect of human
files. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39(2), 311–316. capital, temporary employment and organizational size on firm performance.
Harsanyi, J. C. (1980). Essays on ethics, social behavior, and scientific explanation. Personnel Review, 41(1), 4–22.
Dordrecht: Reidel Publishing Company. Rousseau, D. M., Ho, V. T., & Greenberg, J. (2006). I-deals: Idiosyncratic terms in
Helgadóttir, B., Svedberg, P., Mather, L., Lindfors, P., Bergström, G., & Blom, V. (2018). employment relationships. Academy of Management Review, 31(4), 977–994.
The association between part-time and temporary employment and sickness absence: Rubery, J., Earnshaw, J., Marchington, M., Cooke, F. L., & Vincent, S. (2002). Changing
A prospective Swedish twin study. European Journal of Public Health, 29(1), 147–153. organizational forms and the employment relationship. Journal of Management
Hennekam, S., & Herrbach, O. (2013). HRM practices and low occupational status older Studies, 39(5), 645–672.
workers. Employee Relations, 35(3), 339–355. Runhaar, P., Konermann, J., & Sanders, K. (2013). Teachers’ organizational citizenship
Hobfoll, S. E. (2002). Social and psychological resources and adaptation. Review of behaviour: Considering the roles of their work engagement, autonomy and leader-
General Psychology, 6(4), 307–324. member exchange. Teaching and Teacher Education, 30, 99–108.
Homans, G. C. (1958). Social behavior as exchange. American Journal of Sociology, 63(6), Rusting, C. L., & DeHart, T. (2000). Retrieving positive memories to regulate negative
597–606. mood: Consequences for mood-congruent memory. Journal of Personality and Social
House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (2004). Culture, Psychology, 78(4), 737–752.
leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. London: Sage. Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement of work
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure engagement with a short questionnaire: A cross-national study. Educational and
analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, Psychological Measurement, 66(4), 701–716.
6(1), 1–55. Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., González-Romá, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The
Jaikumar, S., Singh, R., & Sarin, A. (2018). ‘I show off, so I am well off’: Subjective measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor
economic well-being and conspicuous consumption in an emerging economy. analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3(1), 71–92.
Journal of Business Research, 86, 386–393. Schwarz, N. (2002). Situated cognition and the wisdom of feelings: Cognitive tuning. In
Janssen, O., & Gao, L. (2015). Supervisory responsiveness and employee self-perceived L. Feldman Barrett, & P. Salovey (Eds.), The wisdom in feeling: Psychological
status and voice behavior. Journal of Management, 41(7), 1854–1872. processes in emotional intelligence (pp. 144-166). New York: Guilford.
Jiang, J., & Li, N. (2015). A review on the temporary employment research in China and Shaw, J. D., Dineen, B. R., Fang, R., & Vellella, R. F. (2009). Employee-organization
the Western (in Chinese). Human Resources Development of China, 21, 30–38. exchange relationships, HRM practices, and quit rates of good and poor performers.
Jung, H. J., Noh, S. C., & Kim, I. (2018). Relative deprivation of temporary agency Academy of Management Journal, 52(5), 1016–1033.
workers in the public sector: The role of public service motivation and the possibility Shirom, A. (2003). Feeling vigorous at work? The construct of vigor and the study of
of standard employment. Human Resource Management Journal, 28(3), 410–426. positive affect in organizations. In P. L. Perrewé, & D. Ganster (Eds.), Emotional and
Keltner, D., & Haidt, J. (1999). Social functions of emotions at four levels of analysis. physiological processes and positive intervention strategies (Research in
Cognition and Emotion, 13(5), 505–521. organizational stress and well-being), Vol.3 (pp. 135-165). Bingley: Emerald.
Kennedy, J. A., Anderson, C., & Moore, D. A. (2013). When overconfidence is revealed to Shirom, A. (2007). Explaining vigor: On the antecedents and consequences of vigor as a
others: Testing the status-enhancement theory of overconfidence. Organizational positive affect at work. In D. Nelson, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Positive organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 122(2), 266–279. behavior: Accentuating the positive at work (pp. 86–100). London: Sage.
Kniffin, K. M., Yan, J., Wansink, B., & Schulze, W. D. (2017). The sound of cooperation: Shore, L. M., Tetrick, L. E., Lynch, P., & Barksdale, K. (2006). Social and economic
Musical influences on cooperative behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38 exchange: Construct development and validation. Journal of Applied Social
(3), 372–390. Psychology, 36(4), 837–867.
Lam, C. F., Wan, W. H., & Roussin, C. J. (2016). Going the extra mile and feeling Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy
energized: An enrichment perspective of organizational citizenship behaviors. and oppression. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(3), 379–391. Tekleab, A. G., & Taylor, M. S. (2003). Aren’t there two parties in an employment
Lapalme, M. È., Stamper, C. L., Simard, G., & Tremblay, M. (2009). Bringing the outside relationship? Antecedents and consequences of organization-employee agreement on
in: Can “external” workers experience insider status? Journal of Organizational contract obligations and violations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24(5),
Behavior, 30(7), 919-940. 585–608.
Liu, W., Song, Z., Li, X., & Liao, Z. (2017). Why and when leader’s affective states Ten Brummelhuis, L. L., & Bakker, A. B. (2012). A resource perspective on the work-
influence employee upward voice. Academy of Management Journal, 60(1), 238–263. home interface: The work-home resources model. American Psychologist, 67(7),
Lopez-Cabrales, A., & Valle-Cabrera, R. (2020). Sustainable HRM strategies and 545–556.
employment relationships as drivers of the triple bottom line. Human Resource Tompa, E., Scott-Marshall, H., & Fang, M. (2008). The impact of temporary employment
Management Review, 30(3), 1–11. and job tenure on work-related sickness absence. Occupational & Environmental
Magee, J. C., & Galinsky, A. D. (2008). Social hierarchy: The self-reinforcing nature of Medicine, 65(12), 801–807.
power and status. Academy of Management Annals, 2(1), 351–398. Tsui, A. S., Pearce, J. L., Porter, L. W., & Tripoli, A. M. (1997). Alternative approaches to
Maner, J. K., & Kenrick, D. T. (2010). When adaptations go awry: Functional and the employee-organization relationship: Does investment in employees pay off?
dysfunctional aspects of social anxiety. Social Issues and Policy Review, 4(1), 111–142. Academy of Management Journal, 40(5), 1089–1121.
Manhardt, P. J. (1972). Job orientation of male and female college graduates in business. Tsui, A., & Wang, D. (2002). Employment relationships from the employer’s perspective:
Personnel Psychology, 25(2), 361–368. Current research and future directions. In C. L. Cooper, & I. T. Robertson (Eds.),
Matthijs, B. P., Kooij, D. T. A. M., & De Jong, S. B. (2013). How do developmental and International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (Vol. 17, pp. 77–114).
accommodative HRM enhance employee engagement and commitment? The role of Chichester: Wiley.
psychological contract and soc strategies. Journal of Management Studies, 50(4), Van De Voorde, K., Veld, M., & Van Veldhoven, M. (2016). Connecting empowerment-
545–572. focused HRM and labour productivity to work engagement: The mediating role of
McClean, E., Martin, S. R., Emich, K., & Woodruff, T. (2018). The social consequences of job demands and resources. Human Resource Management Journal, 26(2), 192–210.
voice: An examination of voice type and gender on status and subsequent leader Van Dyne, L., & LePine, J. A. (1998). Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: Evidence of
emergence. Academy of Management Journal, 61(5), 1869–1891. construct and predictive validity. Academy of Management Journal, 41(1), 108–119.
Moav, O., & Neeman, Z. (2012). Saving rates and poverty: The role of conspicuous Van Kleef, G. A. (2009). How emotions regulate social life: The emotions as social
consumption and human capital. The Economic Journal, 122(563), 933–956. information (EASI) model. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18(3), 184–188.
Morrison, E. W., & Robinson, S. L. (1997). When employees feel betrayed: A model of Van Kleef, G. A., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Manstead, A. S. R. (2010). An interpersonal
how psychological contract violation develops. Academy of Management Review, 22 approach to emotion in social decision making: The emotions as social information
(1), 226–256. model. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 42, pp.
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2012). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles: Muthén 45–96). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
& Muthén. Vandenabeele, W., Brewer, G. A., & Ritz, A. (2014). Past, present, and future of public
Ng, K. Y., Van Dyne, L., & Ang, S. (2019). Speaking out and speaking up in multicultural service motivation research. Public Administration, 92(4), 779–789.
settings: A two-study examination of cultural intelligence and voice behavior. Wang, D., Tsui, A. S., Zhang, Y., & Ma, Z. L. (2003). Employment relationships and firm
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 151, 150–159. performance: Evidence from an emerging economy. Journal of Organizational
Ng, T. W. H., & Feldman, D. C. (2011). Locus of control and organizational Behavior, 24(5), 511–535.
embeddedness. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 84(1), Wang, J., Cooke, F. L., & Lin, Z. (2016). Informal employment in China: Recent
173–190. development and human resource implications. Asia Pacific Journal of Human
Peluso, A. M., Innocenti, L., & Pilati, M. (2017). Pay is not everything: Differential effects Resources, 54(3), 292–311.
of monetary and non-monetary rewards on employees’ attitudes and behaviours. Whiteside, D. B., & Barclay, L. J. (2013). Echoes of silence: Employee silence as a
Evidence-based HRM: A Global Forum for Empirical Scholarship, 5(3), 311–327. mediator between overall justice and employee outcomes. Journal of Business Ethics,
116(2), 251–266.

220
J. Duan et al. Journal of Business Research 128 (2021) 211–221

Wicklund, R. A., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (1981). Symbolic self-completion, attempted Alessandro M. Peluso (PhD, University of Salento) is Associate Professor of Business
influence, and self-deprecation. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 2(2), 89–114. Management at the Department of Management and Economics of the University of
Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational Salento, Lecce, Italy. His research interests include organizational behavior, consumer
commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. behavior, and social communication. He has published several scientific articles in peer-
Journal of Management, 17(3), 601–617. reviewed scholarly journals, such as the European Journal of Marketing, Human
Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2009). Work Resource Management Journal, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Journal of
engagement and financial returns: A diary study on the role of job and personal Business Ethics, Journal of Business Research, Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of
resources. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 82(1), 183–200. Marketing Research, and Research Policy.
Zhang, A. Y., Song, L. J., Tsui, A. S., & Fu, P. P. (2014). Employee responses to
employment-relationship practices: The role of psychological empowerment and
Linhan Yu is presently a PhD candidate at the Department of Psychology and Behavioral
traditionality. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(6), 809–830.
Science of the Zhejiang University, China. His research interests include leadership and
human resource management.
Jinyun Duan (PhD, Zhejiang University) is Professor of Industrial and Organizational
Psychology in East China Normal University. His research interests include proactive
Massimo Pilati is Professor of Organizational Behaviour at the Marco Biagi Department of
behavior, leadership, social cognition, and entrepreneurship. His publications can be seen
Economics of the University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Italy. His research interests
in Journal of Organizational Behavior, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development,
include organizational behavior, human resource management, change and project
Small Group Research, among others.
management. His publications can be seen in European Management Journal, Human
Resource Management Journal, Evidence-based HRM, and Journal of Change
Management.

221
Nama : Chairul Maulana

NPM : 2011011052

Judul Jurnal : How employment relationship types influence employee work

outcomes: The role of need for status and vigor

Peneliti : Jinyun Duan , Alessandro M. Peluso , Linhan Yu , Massimo Pilati

Tahun : 2021

Sinopsis jurnal “How employment relationship types influence employee work

outcomes: The role of need for status and vigor”

Pendahuluan

Dalam studi ini, peneliti menguji efek moderasi dari kebutuhan karyawan akan
status pada tanggapan mereka terhadap praktik hubungan kerja permanen vs
hubungan kerja secara kontrak di dalam organisasi. Penggunaan pekerjaa secara
kontrak telah meningkat di Cina,sehingga membuat peneliti memiliki
pertanyaan,apakah status karyawan secara permanen dan kontrak memiliki
pengaruh terhadap semangat kerja dari karyawan.

Peneliti memiliki hipotesis bahwa, dibandingkan dengan mereka yang memiliki

hubungan kerja permanen, karyawan dengan hubungan kerja kontrak menunjukkan
tingkat semangat yang lebih tinggi ketika mereka memiliki kebutuhan status yang
lebih tinggi .Selanjutnya, penulis berhipotesis bahwa tingkat semangat yang lebih
tinggi memotivasi karyawan untuk bekerja lebih baik dan lebih sering
menyampaikan suara dan pendapatnya .

Penelitian ini sendiri menggunakan survey yang dilakukan di Cina dengan 303
karyawan dan manajer mereka dari organisasi pemerintah dan perusahaan milik
negara memberikan dukungan untuk hipotesis ini. Penggunaan pekerjaan kontrak
telah meningkat di Cina, tetapi beberapa penelitian sampai saat ini telah
menganalisis hasil dari jenis hubungan kerja (permanen vs kontrak) dari perspektif
kompensasi psikologis.

Adapun teori dan hipotesis yang di pakai pada penelitian ini,

 Hubungan kerja permanen versus kontrak dan hasil kerja dari karyawan

Memahami bagaimana hubungan kerja permanen versus kontrak mempengaruhi

hasil kerja karyawan merupakan hal yang penting. Literatur sebelumnya
menunjukkan bahwa hubungan kerja kontrak, dibandingkan dengan permanen,
lebih cenderung dikaitkan dengan kontrak psikologis.Selain itu hubungan kerja
secara kontrak mempunyai dampak yang negatif terhadap kepuasan kerja
karyawan,keamanan kerja dan dukungan organisasi.

 Interaksi antara hubungan kerja dan kebutuhan akan status.

Kekuatan yang dimiliki karyawan mengacu pada tingkat energi, ketahanan dan
motivasi yang mengarahkan karyawan untuk melakukan aktivitas tertentu di tempat
kerja. Ini melibatkan kombinasi unik dari vitalitas dan gairah, yang meningkatkan
respons karyawan terhadap rangsangan lingkungan ke tingkat yang lebih besar.

Hubungan kerja secara kontrak mungkin memiliki berhubungan negatif dengan

semangat karyawan. Hubungan kerja kontrak menyediakan sumber daya yang
terbatas untuk pelatihan dan pengembangan professional yang merupakan situasi
yang tidak sesuai dengan gagasan dasar bahwa kekuatan karyawan berasal dari
peluang untuk pengembangan dan pelatihan profesional. Selain itu, hubungan kerja
kontrak secara tradisional dikaitkan dengan hubungan kerja berkualitas rendah dan
ketidakamanan kerja karyawan.Namun, pandangan tradisional ini belum
mempertimbangkan perbedaan masing masing individu di antara karyawan, yang
dapat mempengaruhi bagaimana mereka menanggapi berbagai jenis hubungan
kerja. Dalam penelitian ini, penulis justru mengusulkan bahwa hubungan kerja
kontrak dapat meningkatkan,semangat karyawan dalam beberapa keadaan.
Selanjutnya, penulis mengusulkan bahwa keadaan seperti itu ditentukan oleh
tingkat kebutuhan karyawan akan status, perbedaan individu sejauh mana keinginan
karyawan untuk dikagumi dan dihormati di tempat kerja.

 Semangat dan kinerja dan suara karyawan

Semangat secara signifikan terkait dengan motivasi karyawan dan perilaku yang
berhubungan dengan pekerjaan, seperti perilaku tugas, perilaku inovatif, dan
perilaku kewargaan .Oleh karena itu, kami berpendapat bahwa semangat
berhubungan positif dengan dua hasil penting karyawan, yaitu: kinerja pekerjaan
(in-role) dan suara (extra-role). Mengenai kinerja pekerjaan, semangat adalah
katalis utama untuk meningkatkan kinerja tugas individu dan kinerja keseluruhan
di tempat kerja. Ketika individu bersemangat, mereka sering merasakan energi
positif dan termotivasi untuk terlibat dalam tugas yang berbeda. kami berharap
bahwa semangat mendorong keterlibatan di tempat kerja dan meningkatkan
kapasitas karyawan untuk bekerja dengan sukses.

Penelitian dan hasil

Data dikumpulkan di wilayah Delta Sungai Yangtze China dari organisasi

pemerintah dan perusahaan milik negara.Organisasi tersebut menawarkan
keuntungan untuk menguji model penulis karena Delta Sungai Yangtze adalah
wilayah yang sangat berkembang, dan tekanan yang diberikan oleh persaingan
pasar yang ketat memerlukan pendekatan manajemen yang lebih efisien. Penulis
mengundang 372 karyawan dan supervisor lini mereka dari 66 organisasi untuk
menyelesaikan survei dalam tiga tahap. Tim peneliti mengundang organisasi
(melalui kontak sosial penulis) yang memenuhi persyaratan pengambilan sampel
(organisasi publik dan perusahaan milik negara) dan 66 organisasi menanggapi
peneliti.

Pengumpulan data dilakukan dalam tiga tahap.

Selama tahap 1, karyawan menjawab pertanyaan tentang hubungan kerja mereka,

kebutuhan akan status, dan sosio-demografi.

Selama tahap 2, kira-kira sebulan kemudian, karyawan menjawab pertanyaan

tentang kekuatan.

Selama tahap 3, sebulan setelah tahap 2, supervisor lini menyelesaikan survei

tentang kinerja dan suara 3 bawahan.

Tingkat respon untuk penelitian ini adalah 81% (303 kuesioner yang valid diperoleh
pada akhirnya). Sampel akhir terdiri dari 211 karyawan dengan hubungan kerja
tetap dan 92 karyawan dengan hubungan kerja tidak tetap. Usia rata-rata mereka
adalah 29,62 tahun (SD = 7,13), dan 117 di antaranya adalah laki-laki. Masa kerja
rata-rata adalah 3,48 tahun (SD = 4,54), dan 62,1% dari karyawan yang disurvei
memiliki gelar sarjana atau lebih tinggi.Dua kelompok karyawan tetap dan tidak
tetap memiliki rata-rata usia dan distribusi gender yang sebanding. Sebaliknya,
karyawan tetap yang disurvei rata-rata lebih berpendidikan (68% dari mereka
melaporkan tingkat pendidikan lebih tinggi dari gelar sarjana) daripada rekan-rekan
kontrak mereka (48%). Rata-rata masa kerja karyawan tetap yang disurvei (3,94
tahun) secara signifikan lebih tinggi daripada rekan kerja tidak tetap mereka (2,42
tahun).

Adapun hasil dari pengolahan data survey tersebut diantaranya,

 Penulis menemukan hubungan langsung yang tidak signifikan antara

pekerjaan kontrak (vs permanen) dan kinerja pekerjaan Namun, ada
hubungan yang signifikan dan positif antara hubungan kerja kontrak (vs
permanen) dan kekuatan
 Analisis juga mengungkapkan bahwa interaksi antara kebutuhan akan status
dan hubungan kerja memberikan pengaruh yang signifikan dan positif
terhadap kekuatan
 Kami menemukan bahwa karyawan dengan hubungan kerja kontrak
cenderung lebih bersemangat daripada mereka yang memiliki hubungan
kerja permanen ketika mereka memiliki kebutuhan status yang lebih tinggi
(vs lebih rendah)
 Analisis lebih lanjut mengungkapkan bahwa pengaruh tidak langsung
bersyarat dari jenis hubungan kerja (kontrak vs permanen) pada kinerja
melalui semangat adalah signifikan dan positif ketika kebutuhan akan status
tinggi.
Kesimpulan

Penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa jenis hubungan kerja karyawan dan kebutuhan
mereka akan status memainkan peran bersama dalam mempengaruhi hasil kerja
(kinerja dan suara). Hasilnya menunjukkan bahwa hubungan kerja kontrak (vs
permanen) lebih mungkin untuk mempengaruhi hasil karyawan melalui semangat
ketika karyawan tersebut memiliki kebutuhan yang tinggi untuk status. Temuan ini
menunjukkan bahwa jenis hubungan kerja penting untuk kinerja dan suara
karyawan. Indikasi ini menggarisbawahi pentingnya mengambil pendekatan self
completion untuk mempelajari hubungan antara jenis hubungan kerja dan hasil
kerja..

Opini

Menurut saya berdasarkan penjelasan dan hasil yang ada didalam jurnal,jelas status
hubungan kerja (karyawan tetap dan karyawan kontrak) memiliki pengaruh
terhadap peforma karyawan serta keinginan karyawan untuk bersuara dan aktif
didalam perusahaan tersebut,seorang karyawan tetap tentu memiliki pemikiran
bahwa mereka hanya perlu melakukan kewajiban yang telah diberikan kepadanya
tanpa memiliki pemikiran apakah kontraknya di perusahaan akan diperpanjang atau
tidak sehingga karyawan tetap cendrung akan lebih santai untuk menjalankan
tugasnya.Berbeda dengan karyawan kontrak,karyawan kontrak cendrung harus
menampilkan peforma terbaiknya karena dengan memberikan peforma terbaik di
dalam perusahaan tentu berdampak terhadap kontrak yang mereka miliki,karena
adanya kontrak tersebut cendrung akan membuat karyawan sedikit gelisah apakah
kontrak mereka akan diperpanjang oleh perusahaan atau tidak.

Perusahaan seharusnya tidak perlu ragu dalam memberikan pengembangan dan

pelatihan terhadap karyawan kontrak,karena dengan memberikan pengembangan
dan pelatihan tentu akan meningkatkan pengetahuan dan keterampilan dari
karyawan yang nantinya akan memberikan efek kepada perusahaan setidaknya
selama kontrak karyawan bersangkutan masih ada di perusahaan,setelah itu
perusahaan dapat menentukan apakah memperpanjang kontrak karyawan atau
memberikan kontrak karyawan secara permanen berdasarkan hasil yang telah ia
berikan di dalam masa baktinya sebelumnya.

Akan sangat bagus saat perusahaan memberikan kesempatan kepada karyawan

kontrak untuk bersuara dan menyampaikan ide-ide yang dimilikinya,karena dengan
itu tentu kesenjangan antara karyawan tetap dan karyawan kontrak akan
terhindar,selain itu karyawan kontrak juga akan merasakan bahwa kehadirannya
dianggap di dalam perusahaan sehingga akan meningkatkan peforma yang dimiliki
oleh karyawan.Dengan melakukan hal ini perusahaan secara tidak langsung dapat
melihat potensi potensi karyawan kontrak yang tepat untuk diberikan kontrak
sebagai karyawan tetap.