Supporting temporary agency workers’ affective commitments: exploring the role of opportunities for competence development

Figures & data

Figure 1. Triangular relationship of a TAW construction (cf. Håkansson and Isidorsson 2015) illustrated with the concepts being studied: affective commitment (AC) and opportunities for competence development (OfCD).

Note: The business relationship was not part of this study.

Table 1. Oblique rotated factor matrix of items measuring TAWs’ affective commitment towards the client organization and towards the employment agency.

	Factor
	Client organization	Employment agency
1. I feel as if this client organization’s problems are my own	0.523	−.015
2. I feel a strong sense of belonging to this client organization	0.801	−.015
3. I feel ‘emotionally attached’ to this client organization	0.782	−.025
4. I feel like ‘part of the family’ at this client organization	0.742	−.029
5. This client organization means a lot to me	0.807	0.038
6. I feel as if this employment agency’s problems are my own	0.015	0.731
7. I feel a strong sense of belonging to this employment agency	−.038	0.903
8. I feel ‘emotionally attached’ to this employment agency	0.016	0.866
9. I feel like ‘part of the family’ at this employment agency	−.010	0.892
10. This employment agency means a lot to me	−.023	0.861

N = 449.

Table 2. Zero-order correlations (Spearman) between TAWs’ expectations of OfCD, their fulfilment of OfCD, and their affective commitment towards both employment organizations.

	1	2	3	4	5	6	Mean	SD
Dependent variables
1. AC towards the client organization							3.47	0.82
2. AC towards the employment agency	0.37**						2.32	0.81
Independent variables^a
3. Expectations of OfCD at the client organization	−.20**	−.04
4. Expectations of OfCD at the employment agency	−.05	−.04	.27**
5. Fulfilled expectations of OfCD at the client organization	.20**	.10**	.19**	.09
6. Fulfilled expectations of OfCD at the employment agency	.05	.21**	.07	.28**	.19**

N = 449.

^aGiven the measurement level of the independent variables, descriptive statistics are presented in terms of frequencies. See Table 4.

*p < .05, two tailed, **p < .01, two tailed.

Table 3. Percentages of participants’ answers with regard to their expectations and fulfilled expectations of offered opportunities for competence development (OfCD), split for both employment organizations.

	Client organization	Employment agency
Expectations
Yes, I expected OfCD	45.2%	21.4%
I did not have any expectations about getting OfCD	42.8%	61.5%
No, I expected not to get OfCD	12.0%	17.1%
Fulfilled expectations
I got less OfCD than I expected	24.3%	18.9%
I got the same OfCD as I expected	56.6%	51.0%
I got more OfCD than I expected	19.2%	30.1%

N = 449.

Table 4. Results of the multiple regression analyses (Betas) measuring the influence of (fulfilled) expectations of OfCD on affective commitment towards the corresponding organization.

		Client organization^†			Employment agency^‡
Model		1	2	3	1	2	3
Expectations
1.	Yes, I expected OfCD		.22**	.26**		.11*	.21**
2.	No, I did not expect OfCD		−.07	−.04		−.04	−.06
Fulfilled expectations
a.	I got less OfCD than I expected			−.09			−.15*
b.	I got more OfCD than I expected			.18**			.24**
Control variables
i.	Age	−.04	−.02	−.01	.08	.09	.05
ii.	Level of education
	Lower secondary vocational education	.09	.10	.09	.05	.04	.07
	Senior general secondary education, pre-university education	−.06	−.05	−.07	−.11	−.09	−.08
	Senior secondary vocational education and training	.10	.11	.10	−.06	−.05	−.03
	Higher professional education, bachelor in academic higher education	−.01	.00	−.01	−.23	−.20	−.20
	Master in academic higher education, PhD	−.03	−.04	.04	−.32**	−.30**	−.30**
R^2		.03	.09	.14	.08	.10	.16
R^2 ∆			.06	.05		.02	.08

N = 449. Model 1: only the control variables were included in the model as predictors of AC. Model 2: The expectations of offered OfCD were added to the regression model as predictors of AC. Model 3: Fulfilled expectations were added to the regression model.

^†Overall model results: Model 1: R² = .03, F(6,442) = 2.073, p = .055; Model 2: R² = .09, F(8,440) = 5.304, p < .001; Model 3: R² = .14, F(10,438) = 6.857, p < .001.

^‡Overall model results: Model 1: R² = .08, F(6,442) = 6.721, p < .001; Model 2: R² = .10, F(8,440) = 5.959, p < .001; Model 3: R² = .16, F(10,438) = 9.648, p < .001.

*p ≤ .025, two tailed, **p ≤ .01, two tailed.

Table 5. Results of the multiple regression analyses (Betas) measuring the influence of (fulfilled) expectations of OfCD on affective commitment towards the other organization.

AC towards the… →		Client organization^†			Employment agency^‡
Model ↓		a	b	c	a	b	c
Expectations
1.	Yes, I expected OfCD		.10	.13*		.08	.10
2.	No, I did not expect OfCD		−.08	−.09		−.09	−.08
Fulfilled expectations
a.	I got less OfCD than I expected			.02			−.03
b.	I got more OfCD than I expected			.16*			.11*
Control variables
i.	Age	−.04	−.04	−.06	.08	.08	.09
ii.	Level of education
	Lower secondary vocational education	.09	.09	.11	.05	.05	.04
	Senior general secondary education, pre-university education	−.06	−.04	−.03	−.11	−.11	−.12
	Senior secondary vocational education and training	.10	.12	.14	−.06	−.07	−.07
	Higher professional education, bachelor in academic higher education	−.01	.02	.00	−.23	−.23	−.24
	Master in academic higher education, PhD	−.03	.00	.00	−.32**	−.33**	−.32**
R^2		.03	.05	.07	.08	.10	.12
R^2 ∆			.02	.02		.02	.02

N = 449. Model a: only the control variables were included in the model as predictors of AC. Model b: The expectations of offered OfCD added to the regression model as predictors of AC. Model c: Fulfilled expectations were added to the regression model.

^†Overall model results: Model a: R² = .03, F(6,442) = 2.073, p = .055; Model b: R² = .05, F(8,440) = 2.737, p = .006; Model c: R² = .07, F(10,438) = 3.204, p = .001.

^‡Overall model results: Model a: R² = .08, F(6,442) = 6.721, p < .001; Model b: R² = .10, F(8,440) = 6.252, p < .001; Model c: R² = .12, F(10,438) = 5.771, p < .001.

*p ≤ .025, two tailed, **p ≤ .01, two tailed.

Table 6. Division of responsibilities in offering opportunities for competence development.

Who is responsible for offering opportunities for competence development?	Percentage	Example quote
It is primarily the task of the client organization.	44	‘I have a two-year contract at this client organization, so I believe the client organization should invest in my capacities’ (participant 28)
It is primarily the task of the employment agency.	12	‘Officially, I work for the employment agency, so it is their responsibility. I do have another employer [i.e. the client organization], but this employer could be temporary. I hope to work for a longer period for [the employment agency] (participant 400)
It is the shared responsibility of both employment organizations.	29	‘Both organizations benefit from my efforts, so it is positive for both of them if I develop myself and feel well in my job’ (participant 300)
It is the shared responsibility of the client organization, the employment agency and the TAW him/herself.	6	‘An employer should take partial responsibility for your [i.e. the employee] development. The rest is your own responsibility and depends on what you want to invest in yourself’ (participant 227)
It is the TAW’s own responsibility.	4	‘It is mainly my own responsibility to see opportunities, or to ask about the possibilities for development’(participant 209)
‘I do not see any OfCD’.	5	‘None of the them [i.e. the employment organizations] have offered me opportunities to follow a course’ (participant 322)

N = 449.

Figure 2. Mutual relationships of a TAW construction in terms of affective commitment (AC) and TAWs’ (fulfilled) expectations of opportunities for competence development (OfCD), as resulted from this study.

Note: The relationship between the employment agency and the client organization (i.e. the business relationship, dotted line) was not part of this study.

Håkansson, K., and T. Isidorsson. 2015. “Temporary Agency Workers – Precarious Workers? Perceived Job Security and Employability for Temporary Agency Workers and Client Organization Employees at a Swedish Manufacturing Plant.” Nordic Journal of Working Life Studies 5 (4): 3–22. doi:10.19154/njwls.v5i4.4841.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar