| Two theoretical approaches taken from the unemployment literature were examined as possible explanations of the existence of the relationship between subjective job insecurity and both job-related and context-free psychological well-being. Jahoda's (1979) latent functions approach emphasizes the unintended consequences of employment, such as social contact and a sense of identity and status, as being important in ensuring well-being. In contrast, Fryer's (1986) agency restriction approach stresses the importance of the manifest function of pay over the latent functions of employment in maintaining well-being. Both approaches received support since both the latent benefits of employment and the manifest benefit of pay, which was operationalized as anticipated financial strain, mediated the relationship between subjective job insecurity and well-being. Additionally, the latent benefits were stronger predictors of wellbeing than was the manifest benefit of pay. Subjective job insecurity itself was predicted by objective job insecurity, breach of the psychological contract, and neuroticism suggesting that actual job insecurity, employee perceptions of obligations not met by the organization, and personality all play a role in augmenting subjective job insecurity. The findings suggest that each theoretical approach contributes unique variance and thus the approaches are better examined jointly rather than separately. The findings also indicate that these two approaches taken from the unemployment literature can be extended to research on job insecurity. Further, predictors of subjective job insecurity might be useful in lessening subjective job insecurity. |
