Minutes of the Leuven-Meeting

Psycones

Minutes of the Leuven-meeting

(June 2003)

Participants: Amparo, Mike, Nele, Jeroen, Hans, David, Paco, Kerstin, Gisela, Thomas, Inma, René (Saturday)

Introduction

The Leuven-meeting had WP3 (finalising the questionnaire) as a main topic. The discussion paper previously distributed acted as a guide. The minutes follow the structure of this paper. Specific tasks or task groups will be marked in yellow.

Practicalities

- All tasks/suggestions for WP3 (except employers questionnaire) should be send to Thomas and Nele before the end of June.

- Thomas will prepare a draft version of the questionnaire.

- Based on the draft questionnaire (taken into account the length of the questionnaire) and by e-mail discussion, final decisions on what to include/exclude and on layout can be made.

- When the questionnaire is finalised, David and Mike will check for language.

Neither the conceptual model nor the exact research questions were further discussed. The discussion concerning the research question centres on the importance of the psychological contract as an intervening variable as compared to other intervening variables. This discussion is postponed to the Tilburg-meeting but should also be part of e-mail conversations. Moreover, Kerstin suggested videoconferences as a possible medium for discussion. Every national team must check the possibilities of using this medium at their universities.

After Kerstin left (‘after meeting’), we still decided that:

- we should translate scales from the original language into the language of each country (and not to English and translate the English version into ‘our’ languages).

- Thomas will make the final lay-out of the questionnaire (‘mother version’). After translation, all version should be send back to Thomas, so that he can check whether there are no mistakes. Please read and reread the final versions many times, in order to avoid mistakes!

WP3 (see discussion paper)

1. Control

1.1. Education

It was agreed to use the OECD-classification, making it possible to recode country-specific classifications into six categories. The country-specific tables were distributed in Leuven and can be found in the appendix of the discussion paper (More information:

How old were you when you left school?

It was agreed to use this variable because

- it can be used as a proxy for educational level

- it can be used to perform regression analyses

- it is often used in international research.

However, this question has to be rephrased since

- there are international differences (e.g. starting date, social services,….)

- e.g. evening schools have to be excluded

- the possibility of currently being a student has to be included

The final question becomes:

How many years of full-time/formal education did you complete?

____ years

❐ I am a student

Note: for the UK, it was suggested not to use ‘complete’, but instead ‘achieve’ or ‘attain’

1.2. Family standard of Living

For Family Standard of Living, a subjective (Hans) and objective (Mike+David) measure were suggested.

Subjective

It was agreed that this question would be included in the questionnaire if there is some space left. If not, this measure is excluded because

- there are cultural differences across countries (e.g. in the UK: no ‘saving-culture’).

- Of reasons of priority

Objective

(1) Financial contribution

The suggestion of David and Mike is slightly changed in order to rule out difficulties in answering: the answer possibilities are complemented with percentages. The scale should be considered as an ordinal variable. The final question becomes

In your household, are you the….

❐ sole earner (100%)

❐ main earner (>50%)

❐ joint earner (+/- 50%)

❐ Contributory earner (< 50%)

(2) Children: excluded

(3) Dependents

This question is slightly rephrased:

How many people, including yourself, are largely dependent on the household income?

(4) Home responsibilities

The Spanish team suggested to include the pilot-variable on the home responsibilities: in the literature, the need to attending domestic tasks and taking care of the children has been identified as an important reason to prefer temporary or permanent work. However, since it was decided to include motives, this question can be integrated there.

1.3. Family status  family situation

It was agreed to use the suggestion of David and Mike, supplemented with the remark of Nele. The final question becomes:

What is your family situation?

❐ Single, or living as single

❐ Married, or living with a partner

❐ Living with parents/family

1.4. Occupation

It was agreed to use six categories, referring to organisational position. These categories will be elaborated by using sample-specific examples (comparable to the suggestion of David – Type of Work):

❐ unskilled blue-collar worker

❐ skilled blue collar worker + foremen

❐ low-skilled white-collar worker

❐ intermediate white-collar worker

❐ high-skilled white collar worker / professional

❐ management

Note: the specific names may change a bit, in order to avoid negative connotations.

1.5. Work hours

Question: How many hours per week do you usually work at THIS job?

1.6. Working system

Question: Do you work NIGHT shifts?

❐ Yes

❐ No

1.7. Tenure

It was decided to question only the tenure in the organisation.

Question: How long have you been working in THIS organisation?

2. Independent variables

2.1. Type of contract

It was agreed to use a revised version of suggestion 4 (Nele) as mentioned in the discussion paper. The changes should include:

- rephrasing of the question: do you have a permanent contract IN THIS ORGANISATION?

- The subcategory of permanent workers: this will clearly include the category of the civil servants (use country-specific vocabulary)

- The subcategory of temporary workers:

job creation schemes will be considered as a distinct category;
probation and training will be considered as a distinct category.
The category of subcontractors will be added.
A clear distinction will be made between temporary agency workers having a temporary or a permanent contract.

2.2. Duration / time left (only to be asked to non-permanent workers)

(1) How long is the duration of your contract

❐ Not specified

❐ Specified: ___months;____days

(2) How much time do you have left in your contract

❐ Not specified  if not specified, please estimate the time left in your contract

______months; ______days

❐ Specified______months; ______days

2.3. Contracts history (only to be asked to non-permanent workers)

It was agreed to ask question 2 of the discussion paper. The answer possibilities have to be spread out.

Question: in total, how long did you work on temporary contracts thus far/until now?

3. Intervening variables

3.1. The psychological contract

(1) format of the psychological contract – content items

The yes/no question will be integrated into one 6-point scale, ranging from ‘no promise made’, over ‘yes, but promise not kept’ to ‘yes and promise fully kept’ (five answer possibilities for the ‘yes, …’-question).

(2) items of the psychological contract – content items

The rationale in the pilot was to use two items per dimensions. However, some items are very similar (e.g. c & h). Moreover, some dimensions were not included. René also mentioned that the original idea of using two items per dimension was lost during the pilot, because the seven dimensions were not clear. Therefore, single items can be used. It was decided that the ‘distal pairs’ could be kept; only the ‘similar pairs’ should change, in order not to loose the entire dimension. The following dimensions should explicitly be included, above and next to the dimensions already included in the pilot questionnaire:

- family-friendly policies

- work/life balance

- employability

- health and safety

(3) analysis of the psychological contract – content items

In the pilot, there was some confusion on how to use the items of the psychological contract in analysis. Some clarification is needed.

(4) Breach (emotional responses)

René and Kerstin proposed to include a measure for breach (i.e. the emotional feelings & reactions). It was agreed that those feelings and reactions should refer to both positive and negative items.

3.2. Employability

It was decided to use a four-item scale to measure employability. This scale is closely related to the scale used in the pilot. Item one, two and five are rephrased, item 4 is skipped. The final scale:

I am confident that I could quickly get a similar job.
I will easily find another job, if I loose this job
I am optimistic that I will find another job, if I look for one
I can easily switch to another employer, if I wanted to.

3.3. Employee expectations becomes ‘contract expectations’ (only to be asked to non-permanent employees)

It was decided to measure contract expectations using a four-item scale. Both expectations and knowledge and both the expected chance on a permanent contract and a renewal of the temporary contract should be included.

I think I will be employed in this organisation for longer than has been agreed in my employment contract.
I expect that I will have to leave here once my present employment contract has run out.
I think my present employment contract will be renewed when it expires.
I have been promised that I will get a permanent contract when my present contract expires.

3.4. Contract of choice (Volition)

a. We decided to use a 4-item scale for volition. In case the questionnaire turns out to be too long, this scale can be shortened to three items.

My current contract is the employment contract that I prefer.
My present employment contract suits me for the time being.
I would prefer a different type of employment contract to the one I have now.
The employment contract I have today, is the one I want to have in the future.

b. We decided to include a short section about motives, again only to be asked to non-permanent employees. This was decided because of the experiences of the Spanish and the Belgian team: including motives makes it possible to distinguish different types of temporary workers, possibly enabling more refined analyses.

The motives should include following items:

family
stepping stone
life style
could not find a permanent job
increases my employability

3.5. Work of choice

In order to facilitate comparisons, it was agreed to use the items of ‘contract of choice’, thereby replacing contract by work. This has the advantage of being able to construct a measure of global volition. The final questions refer on the one hand to the concrete job, on the other hand to the more abstract concept of profession/occupation:

My current job is my preferred job
My current profession/occupation is my preferred profession/occupation.

3.6. Job characteristics

dimensions

It was agreed to use the dimensions as proposed by the task group (Kerstin, Hans & Gisela). The different dimensions are measured by the instruments mentioned:

Work load
time pressure  ISTA
role ambiguity (NOT role conflict)  Price & Mueller (1986)
Autonomy
task control  Proposal of David, otherwise Van der Doef & Maes (1999)
decision control  excluded
Social support

Will be discussed together with organisational support

Skill utilization

It was agreed that we need more proposals than mentioned in the discussion paper. As a provisional solution, the scale of Van der Doef & Maes (1999) can be used, slightly changed.

This job requires me to be creative
I have an opportunity to develop my own (special) abilities.
My job requires a high level of skills
My job requires me to learn new things.

3.7. Organisational support

Since not only organisational support, but also the support received from the supervisor are considered to be important, two scales will be used.

1. POS (Eisenberg et al., 1997); shortened version

This organisation cares about my opinion.
This organisation really cares about my well-being.
This organisation strongly considers my goals and values.
Help is available from this organisation when I have a problem.
This organisation shows very little concern for me.

2. Social support supervisor (Van der Doef & Maes, 1999)

My supervisor is concerned about the welfare of those under him.
My supervisor pays attention to what I am saying.
I feel appreciated by my supervisor.
My supervisor is helpful in getting the job done;

3.8. Prospects of the company  excluded

3.9. Core HR-practices

Shortened version of the scale proposed by David.

Does this organisation provide you with sufficient opportunities to express your views on issues and concerns at work?
Has this organisation provided you with any training and development – such as on-the-job training or some sort of course or planned activity – to update your skills?
Is there any serious attempt in this organisation to make the jobs of people like you as interesting and varied as possible?
Have you received a formal performance appraisal during the past year?
Does this organisation provide you any support with non-work responsibilities – for example, childcare facilities, flexible hours, financial planning or legal services?
Does this organisation actively carry out equal opportunities practices in the workplace?
Does this organisation take active steps to prevent any kind of harassment or bullying for people like you?
Is your pay related to your personal performance in any way through some sort of performance or merit-related pay?

4. Dependent variables

4.1. Life satisfaction

The life satisfaction scale is a good measure, since it adds a positive outcome variable to the model and since it worked well in the pilot. However, the scale may be somewhat shortened, based on correlations with other variables. We may consider a selection of topics, e.g. those most relevant for our independent variable (employment contract). Moreover, the layout should change somewhat in order to reduce the number of pages in the questionnaire.

4.2. Job satisfaction

The job satisfaction scale as used in the pilot will remain in the main study (4 items). However, we must pay attention to the right reference (the items used in the pilot should stem from Price, but apparently this is not correct)!

4.3. Job involvement becomes ‘work involvement’

The job involvement measure as used in the pilot is replaced by the work involvement scale, suggested by the UK-team 6 items). The place of the variable in the conceptual model needs to be discussed (now it more clearly becomes an independent, control variable). Moreover, when it turns out that the questionnaire is too long, this is one of the variables open for discussion.

4.4. Sick leave/sick presence

The items of the pilot are kept, except

- that the timeframe is broadened to 12 months (and not 6 months)

- that we explicitly add ‘due to the state of your health’

- that we add an item on harassment/violation

Question

1. How often have you been absent from work over the last 12 months due to the state of your health?

2. How often have you gone to work despite of feeling that you really should have stayed away due to the state of your health over the last 12 months?

3. Have you had an accident at the work place over the last 12 months? (please count all accidents, even when you have been able to continue to work the same day)

4. Harassment/violence

4.5. Work life interference

We decided to keep the scale on positive work-home interference used in the pilot (item 31 j, l, o, p). The negative work-home interference will be drawn from the irritation scale (will be discussed later). The Spanish team suggested that it might be good to use softer answering categories, in order to guarantee a higher differentiation in the answers given by the employee.

4.6. Well-being

We decided to use

(1) The subscale General health from the short version of the SF36 (5 items)

(2) Warr’s scale of affective well-being, focussed on the job (two dimensions: anxiety & depression).

(3) The Irritation scale (8 items; four of which refer to negative work-home interference)

4.7. Occupational self-efficacy

Occupational self-efficacy is considered as an aspect of employee well-being. Since this variable proved to be a variable distinguishing permanent and temporary workers (WP2), it was decided to keep the variable as it was used in the pilot. However, when the questionnaire turns out to be too long, this variable is open for discussion.

4.8. psychosomatic complaints  excluded

4.9. drugs / alcohol  excluded

4.10. Performance

It was decided to shorten the performance scale of the pilot. Since we already have a measure of organisational and social support, items 15 & 15I (‘social performance’) are skipped.

4.11. Intention to quit

It was said that ‘desire to leave’ might be better suited for temporary workers. Moreover, the questions should be about the job/assignment.

4.12. OCB

We decided to use the proposal of the Spanish team, since this questions OCB both at an individual and organisational level. However, more information is needed.

4.13. Organisational commitment

The scale as used in the pilot is kept, except for item 16b, which is skipped.

Employer questionnaire

A draft of the employer questionnaire should be ready before we start contacting the companies for the main study. The final version should be ready by the end of July. Very structured interviews/ questionnaires seem to be the appropriate way to gather this type of information. The information will be used for the multilevel analysis.

The ‘employer questionnaire’ also needs to be supplemented by a ‘union questionnaire’. Unions should be asked questions concerning the psychological contract, the strategies and the prospects. They should not be questioned about the control variables (e.g. size)

Minutes of the Leuven-Meeting

Psycones