Fluent Essays

Article Summary 2 pages typed Apa format Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=pewo20 European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology ISSN: 1359-432X (Print) 1464-0643 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/pewo20 Teaming up with temps: the impact of temporary workers on team social networks and effectiveness Christa L. Wilkin, Jeroen P. de Jong & Cristina Rubino To cite this article: Christa L. Wilkin, Jeroen P. de Jong & Cristina Rubino (2018) Teaming up with temps: the impact of temporary workers on team social networks and effectiveness, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 27:2, 204-218, DOI: 10.1080/1359432X.2017.1418329 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2017.1418329 © 2017 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group. Published online: 21 Dec 2017. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 4480 View related articles View Crossmark data Citing articles: 1 View citing articles https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=pewo20 https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/pewo20 https://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/1359432X.2017.1418329 https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2017.1418329 https://www.tandfonline.com/action/authorSubmission?journalCode=pewo20&show=instructions https://www.tandfonline.com/action/authorSubmission?journalCode=pewo20&show=instructions https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/mlt/10.1080/1359432X.2017.1418329 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/mlt/10.1080/1359432X.2017.1418329 http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1080/1359432X.2017.1418329&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2017-12-21 http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1080/1359432X.2017.1418329&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2017-12-21 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/citedby/10.1080/1359432X.2017.1418329#tabModule https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/citedby/10.1080/1359432X.2017.1418329#tabModule Teaming up with temps: the impact of temporary workers on team social networks and effectiveness Christa L. Wilkina, Jeroen P. de Jongb and Cristina Rubinoc aSchool of Human Resource Management, York University, Toronto, Canada; bDepartment of Organisation, Open University of the Netherlands, Heerlen, The Netherlands; cDepartment of Management, California State University Northridge, Northridge, CA, USA ABSTRACT Temporary workers offer immediate benefits to the bottom line; yet, it is unclear how incorporating temporary workers into teams affects how they function. We apply social identity theory to propose that temporary workers significantly reduce individual- and team-level networks and team effectiveness but that commitment to the leader and intergroup competition can help temporary and permanent employees work together more effectively. Using a sample of employees nested in teams (Study 1, n = 312), we found that status differences affected member interactions resulting in sparser advice and friendship networks for temporary workers compared to their permanent counterparts. At the team level (Study 2, n = 58), these team member differences or contract diversity impacted team functioning through advice networks, such that, teams with greater contract diversity had sparser networks and were less effective. Further, commitment to the leader was found to moderate the negative impact of contract diversity on advice and friendship network density. With the increasing use of temporary worker and the prevalent use of teams, these findings have broader implications for HR functions and present possible avenues to mitigate the negative consequences of temporary workers. ARTICLE HISTORY Received 15 February 2017 Accepted 11 December 2017 KEYWORDS Temporary employment; teams; team effectiveness; social networks; contract diversity Temporary work is increasingly being used to afford organiza- tions greater flexibility and reduce employment costs (Bidwell, Briscoe, Fernandez-Mateo, & Sterling, 2013). Temporary work- ers are employed at organizations for a particular length of time, typically with short-term contracts, and are hired directly or recruited through an agency, whereas permanent employ- ees are employed indefinitely (Kalleberg, 2000). The staffing flexibility and cost reduction associated with temporary work (e.g., not having to hire, train, and fire) is attractive to organi- zations, but this perspective focuses on immediate benefits to the bottom line and ignores the potential downside to hiring temporary workers for team functioning. Numerous studies on contract work find that temporary workers negatively impact permanent employees’ attitudes and behaviours (e.g., Banerjee, Tolbert, & DiCiccio, 2012; Chattopadhyay & George, 2001; Davis-Blake, Broschak, & George, 2003; von Hippel & Kalokerinos, 2012). These findings highlight the negative consequences that temporary workers have on permanent employees, yet in order for teams to be effective, employees must find ways to work together such as share knowledge (e.g., advice networks) and offer support (e.g., friendship networks), which are central to team effective- ness (Kozlowski & Bell, 2003). To understand how differences among team members in contract type (temporary or permanent) affect teams, we test a model using two studies that examines whether, how, and when temporary and permanent workers can work together effectively. First, we test within-group differences in organiza- tional teams by comparing the social networks (i.e., advice and friendship networks) of team members with different con- tracts, specifically temporary workers and their permanent counterparts in blended teams and permanent employees in non-blended teams who work only with other permanent employees. Second, we build on the within-group findings by examining how team-level contract diversity influences team effectiveness through social networks and factors in the broader context as moderators that may contribute to better team functioning (e.g., team commitment to the leader, intergroup competition; see Figure 1 for depiction of the proposed model). Thus, our examination of the impact of blended work- groups on team functioning attempts to make several impor- tant contributions that are particularly salient given the increase in blended workgroups. First, we contribute to the temporary employment literature by examining (a) whether the inclusion of temporary workers in teams relates to how well members work together, (b) a mechanism through which blended workgroups hinder or enhance team effectiveness, and (c) ways we can capitalize on diversity in employment contracts (e.g., garner commitment). We lend further insight into temporary work research by incorporating structural ele- ments as team processes that relate to contract differences. CONTACT Jeroen P. de Jong [email protected] Preliminary versions of this manuscript were presented at the Academy of Management Annual Meeting in Philadelphia, PA (2014) and the European Association of Work and Organizational Psychology in Münster, Germany (2013). The authors thank C. Connelly, P. L. Curseu, D. G. Gallagher, J. Knoben, H. van Dijk, and M. Veld for their helpful comments on earlier drafts. The authors take full responsibility for any limitations. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF WORK AND ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY, 2018 VOL. 27, NO. 2, 204–218 https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2017.1418329 © 2017 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way. http://www.tandfonline.com http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1080/1359432X.2017.1418329&domain=pdf Second, we contribute to the team diversity literature through our timely exploration of contract diversity, a rela- tively unexplored, status-diversity construct. We build on find- ings that status differences are likely recognized and reinforced in social networks (e.g., Bingham, Oldroyd, Thompson, Bednar, & Bunderson, 2014) by providing an account of how contract diversity can enhance or inhibit team functioning through our proposed model. Further, we contribute methodologically and substantively to findings linking other forms of diversity to social networks (e.g., Klein, Beng-Chong, Saltz, & Mayer, 2004; Reagans, Zuckerman, & McEvily, 2004), which focus on single organizations or use one level of analysis, by using a multi-level approach at the individual (Study 1) and team levels (Study 2). Finally, with the increasing use of temporary workers and the prevalent use of teams, uncovering interactional differ- ences in employment contracts and their association with team effectiveness is essential for modern organizations and managers interested in leveraging their human capital in the face of contract diversity. By identifying how this previously unexplored factor impacts team effectiveness, our findings have the potential to impact job design, talent management, and training and development, and consequently, have broader implications for organizational performance (Brown & Eisenhardt, 1995). Theoretical background The past few decades have seen a large increase of studies examining diversity in work teams and the association between work team diversity and team performance in parti- cular (van Dijk, van Engen, & van Knippenberg, 2012). More recently, status-related processes have been proposed as an important mechanism explaining the effects of work team diversity on team performance (van Dijk & van Engen, 2013). Status is the degree of influence, prominence, and respect that others perceive an individual to have that determines one’s social standing (Ridgeway & Walker, 1995) and is based on perceived access to resources (e.g., knowledge; Bingham et al., 2014). Individuals view status as a sign of competence and as a means to obtain resources (e.g., information) through a better hierarchical position (Huberman, Loch, & Önçüler, 2004). Those lower in status tend to have a higher risk of being harmed, less likely to be facilitated, and attributed with lower levels of warmth (van Dijk, Meyer, van Engen, & Loyd, 2017), which could impact cohesion, cooperation, and eventually performance of the work team. In this study, status hierarchies are reflected by the ties between organizational members through immediate bar- riers to team interactions. The level of centrality in a network can be considered as a sociometric measure of status (e.g., Friedkin, 1991); being central in a network implies many sources for knowledge and information, and having many friends adds more status in a network. The determinants of network centrality are consistent with theories of similarity- attraction (Byrne, 1971) and social identity (Tajfel & Turner, 1986). According to similarity-attraction, individuals are attracted to others based on important similar aspects such as attitudes and values. Individuals categorize others based on these perceived similarities and differences, where similar others are categorized as in-group members, while those who are different are considered out-group members. Consistent with social identity theory, in-group members are assigned positive attributes and treated with favouritism, meanwhile outsiders are stigmatized (Tajfel & Turner, 1986) and may become targets of social exclusion (Scott, Restubog, & Zagenczyk, 2013). These theories suggest that status differences based on employment type may prompt high status members to be attracted to one another and form in-groups, while categorizing those with low status as Permanent Workers in Non-Blended Teams Moderators Commitment to Leader (H6) Intergroup Competition (H7) H1-H4: Group comparisons of in-degree and out-degree advice and friendship ties with Blended Permanent Workers Advice Networks Friendship Networks Contract Diversity - - Team Effectiveness + + H5: Mediated Relationship Temporary Workers in Blended Teams Permanent Workers in Blended Teams Advice Ties Requests for Advice (in-degree) Seek Advice (out-degree) Friendship Ties Requests for Friendship (in-degree) Seek Friendship (out-degree) -/+ -/+ =/+ +/+ Figure 1. Proposed model exploring contract diversity and social networks at the individual and team level. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF WORK AND ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY 205 out-group members. Because attraction likely results in increased communication and interaction (Tsui, Egan, & O’Reilly, 1992), similar employees may develop closer ties with each other than with dissimilar others. As such, we propose that differences in status due to employment type may impact the extent to which team members ask each other for advice (advice networks) and see each other as friends (friendship networks; Van Emmerik & Brenninkmeijer, 2009). Hypotheses Due to the short-term nature of temporary employment con- tracts, status differences may be particularly salient in diversity associated with employment contracts. Although some tem- porary workers perform highly-skilled work, they typically receive less pay compared to equally skilled permanent work- ers, have a transient employment contract, have been described as being inferior and having a weak work ethic (Boyce, Ryan, Imus, & Morgeson, 2007; Marler, Woodard Barringer, & Milkovich, 2002), which suggests the presence of status differences between temporary and permanent workers (Boyce et al., 2007; Kalleberg, 2000). These observable differ- ences in pay and existing stereotypes are an outward mani- festation of underlying status differences where permanent employees have more influence, prominence, and respect in the workplace. Status and specifically, perceptions of human capital, are directly linked to the employee-organization relationship such that employees who are perceived to be fulfilling rela- tionship obligations (more enduring relationships; invested in organizational goals) acquire more status than employees who are perceived to fulfil transactional obligations (well- defined roles, short-term relationships; Bingham et al., 2014). This disparity in obligations results in perception dif- ferences between permanent employees and their temporary counterparts. Permanent employees are typically perceived as more invested, competent, influential, and thus, having greater access to resources and acquiring higher status (e.g., Bingham et al., 2014; Hogg & Terry, 2000) compared to temporary workers who are stereotyped as less skilled, intel- ligent, and knowledgeable and thus, having fewer resources being given lower status (Parker, 1994). Perceptions of temporary workers are likely formed early on as employees are typically introduced to others as temporary members causing others to attribute status-related stereo- types solely based on the nature of their employment. Organizations further perpetuate these status differences by investing fewer resources (e.g., benefits; career planning; train- ing) in low status members (e.g., temporary workers) once hired. Providing support for these contentions, these differ- ences in status are arguably the most salient disparity in blended workgroups (Boyce et al., 2007). Although status differences are inherent in other diversity constructs, contract diversity is unique in that (a) other time-related characteristics (e.g., tenure) do not have the same stigma attached (e.g., a less skilled new permanent employee will not experience the same stigma as a new temporary worker) and (b) the temporal nature of employment contracts differentiates it from other status-related diversity constructs (e.g., gender) for which time is not a factor in the formation of status hierarchies in teams. Type of contract and advice network centrality Advice networks, which capture the exchange of resources such as information, assistance, and guidance among team members, help members acquire and use relevant knowledge from their teammates to perform tasks (Balkundi & Harrison, 2006). Members’ access to these resources is indicated by their level of centrality within the advice network (Sparrowe, Liden, Wayne, & Kraimer, 2001) as those with a greater number of connections obtain more resources. Drawing on the similarity- attraction (Byrne, 1971) and social identity (Tajfel & Turner, 1986) frameworks, both permanent and temporary team members are more likely to turn to their permanent counter- parts, who are perceived to be high-status in-group members with greater access to resources (e.g., information) for advice over their temporary counterparts as they lack influence and are thought to offer little value. Although permanent mem- bers could benefit from integrating the knowledge, perspec- tives, or skills of temporary members (Tempest, 2009), status hierarchies are likely to be reinforced once formed. Even in light of contradictory information (e.g., temporary workers are more skilled), permanent workers may be prone to ignore data that does not adhere to stereotypes or misperceptions. For example, even if organizations employ highly-skilled tempor- ary workers for short-term projects (i.e., functional flexibility), they may still be stereotyped as outsiders who are less skilled and intelligent (Marler et al., 2002) and discounted as a poten- tial source of advice. Instead, members are motivated to pro- tect or gain status/resources within the status hierarchy. In the interest of protecting their status, permanent members may avoid asking temporary members for advice to not risk a drop in status (Agneessens & Wittek, 2012), whereas temporary members have only to benefit from asking their high-status permanent counterparts for advice, and not from other low- status temporary members, as they gain access to resources without their status being threatened (see Figure 2). Findings support that status hierarchies create non-reciprocal relation- ships where high status individuals or advice givers are less likely to ask for advice from low status individuals or advice seekers (e.g., Agneessens & Wittek, 2012). In a related vein, differences in advice networks are likely present between permanent employees in blended and non- blended teams. Though research suggests that high-status (e.g., permanent) group members form coalitions when there are status conflicts (e.g., Wittenbaum & Bowman, 2005), per- manent employees in blended groups, who are unlikely to ask advice from lower status members, have fewer team members from whom they can seek advice. Conversely, permanent employees in nonblended groups can defer to all other team members without risking a drop in status. In terms of advice seeking, all team members are likely to seek advice from high- status permanent employees consistently in both blended and nonblended groups, yet blended permanent employees may receive more requests for advice because there are overall fewer permanent members in the group from whom to ask advice. As such, we predict that: 206 C. L. WILKIN ET AL. H1: Temporary workers will receive fewer requests for advice and seek more advice from their team members than permanent employees. H2: Permanent employees in blended teams will seek less advice and receive equal amounts of requests for advice from team members than permanent employees in nonblended teams. Type of contract and friendship network centrality Categorization based on contract type may also impact friendship networks, which are affect-laden connections that develop over time through shared experiences that are characterized by sup- port, trustworthiness, and affection (Lincoln & Miller, 1979). Because friendship networks are formed based on perceived simi- larities and shared identities (Mehra, Kilduff, & Brass, 1998), we leverage similarity-attraction and social identity to suggest that perceived differences based on employee contract reinforce status hierarchies and the creation of sub-groups based on perceived similarity to others (i.e., in-group: permanent vs. out-group: tem- porary). Indeed, scholars note that these status hierarchies and segregation affect primary ties (i.e., friendship networks; Lincoln & Miller, 1979). Employees (e.g., permanent employees) are likely to favour developing closer ties with those perceived similar to them (e.g., other permanent employees) compared to with dissimilar others (e.g., temporary employees). Favouritism also causes the segregation of others, which further reduces opportunities for communication with non-group members and increases in- group ties and a shared identity. Non-reciprocal advice ties (i.e., low-status employees seek advice, high-status employees give advice; Agneessens & Wittek, 2012) also limit the amount of inter- action occurring between temporary and permanent workers, which further exacerbates group divisions. Like advice ties, studies show that friendship is, in almost half of the cases, non-reciprocal (e.g., Almaatouq, Radaelli, Pentland, & Shmueli, 2016; see unidirectional and reciprocal ties in Figure 2). People are generally poor at perceiving the reciprocal nature of friendships, as individuals may have an egocentric view that puts them more in the centre of friendship networks compared to reality (Kumbasar, Rommey, & Batchelder, 1994). This implies that the in-degree and out-degree friendship network centrality do not necessarily have to be equal; for example, a team member may consider all of her fellow team members as friends, but only one of the fellow team members may consider her as a friend in return. Temporary members as low-status out-group members are likely affected the most. As proposed above, unlike advice (a) (b) (c) (d) Figure 2. Examples of hypothesized advice and friendship networks of blended and nonblended teams. (a) Advice network of blended team, (b) advice network of nonblended team, (c) friendship network of blended team, (d) friendship network of nonblended team. T: temporary worker; BP: blended permanent worker; NP: nonblended permanent worker; dotted arrow: unidirectional ties; solid arrow: reciprocal ties. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF WORK AND ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY 207 networks, temporary workers will seek friendships with similar others with whom they share experiences (i.e., other tempor- ary workers). Though they may desire developing additional friendship ties, we expect that they will seek them with indi- viduals outside of the workgroup, especially when they are the only temporary group member, rather than with permanent workers, with whom a friendship may seem one-sided, lacking trust, not feasible, or not supportive. Permanent members may visibly express favouritism for other permanent members or not make any effort to communicate/connect with temporary workers, causing feelings of isolation and alienation. Likewise, rather than reaching out to temporary members, permanent employees will focus on building relationships with other permanent members, with whom they feel they have more in common. As they share similar status, the rela- tionships that develop can prove beneficial over time (e.g., increased social support). The finite nature of their contracts may make it seem like a fruitless endeavour to invest friend- ship resources in temporary workers. Thus, permanent workers expect to gain little by forming friendship ties with low status individuals and may even fear a drop in status or threat to in- group friendships. Though both blended and nonblended permanent employees will seek friendship from other perma- nent members, blended permanent employees will have fewer members from which to seek friendships and receive fewer requests due to having fewer permanent members in their group and temporary members who seek friendship else- where. In line with this theoretical rationale, we expect that: H3: Temporary workers will receive fewer and seek fewer friend- ships from their team members than permanent employees. H4: Permanent employees in blended teams will seek fewer friendships and receive fewer friendship requests from team members than permanent employees in nonblended teams. Contract diversity and team functioning We now build on the within-group findings to better under- stand how contract diversity impacts team functioning. Scholars have examined the impact of group differences on team performance and the results largely remain equivocal. Some studies suggest that team diversity enhances perfor- mance, whereas other studies find a negative relationship between team diversity and performance. Varied findings have been attributed to the “oversimplification of team diversity – an inherently complex construct” (Bell, Villado, Lukasik, Belau, & Briggs, 2011, p. 710) and an insufficient consideration of mechanisms or moderators linking diversity to team performance (van Dijk et al., 2012; van Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007). The previous perspective focusing on directly linking diversity and performance through status hierarchies or social network structures diverges from the current thinking in team research, which depicts teams as complex adaptive systems and focuses on broadening our understanding of process variables (e.g., input-mediator-out- put-input (IMOI); Ilgen, Hollenbeck, Johnson, & Jundt, 2005). The IMOI framework suggests that team processes are members’ “interdependent acts that convert inputs to out- comes through cognitive, verbal, and behavioural activities directed toward organizing taskwork to achieve collective goals” (Marks, Mathieu, & Zaccaro, 2001, p. 357). Although team processes have typically included content and temporal mechanisms, they have largely ignored structural configura- tions (e.g., status hierarchies, social networks; Crawford & Lepine, 2013; van Dijk & van Engen, 2013). Few studies focusing specifically on social networks sug- gest that they mediate the relationship between demographic diversity constructs (e.g., education, gender) and team out- comes (e.g., Curşeu, Raab, Han, & Loenen, 2012; Reagans et al., 2004). Yet, other studies fail to find support for the link between certain diversity constructs and social networks. For example, Henttonen, Janhonen, Johanson, and Puumalainen (2010) found that education and age diversity did not impact team social networks; only gender diversity was related to social networks. Another study found that deep level differ- ences (e.g., values similarity) were more instrumental in affect- ing social networks than surface level differences, as demographic similarity did not predict friendship networks (Klein et al., 2004). Individual-level predictions that interactions among team members differ in blended and nonblended work teams suggest that contract diversity will impact the density of team social networks. Weak relationship ties among group members are characterized by a sparse network density (Sparrowe et al., 2001), which can restrict the exchange of knowledge and support, and the flow for different ideas and shared experiences (Henttonen et al., 2010). Because perma- nent employees in blended teams will be less likely to go to temporary workers for friendship and advice, blended teams will have networks that are less dense compared to non- blended teams. As resources are exchanged in teams, members gain a better understanding of their colleagues and develop comra- deship (Klein et al., 2004). An exchange of resources also leads to the sharing of knowledge and without this team interac- tion, members do not work as a unified team, resulting in reduced productivity and difficulties achieving team goals. The interaction that occurs may result in increased relationship conflicts among team members (e.g., von Hippel & Kalokerinos, 2012), which can inhibit performance. Teams that therefore fully utilize team members by exchanging resources (i.e., seeking their advice and friendship), or have denser social networks, are more likely to experience higher performance. Indeed, research indicates that team advice and friendship network density impact team performance (e.g., Henttonen et al., 2010). Moreover, Grund (2012) found that teams with only a few highly central members show lower team performance compared to teams with a more evenly distributed social network. As such, we expect that contract diversity affects advice and friendship network density, and as a result, team effectiveness through the structural mechanisms of social networks. H5: Contract diversity negatively affects team effectiveness through its negative impact on advice and friendship network density. 208 C. L. WILKIN ET AL. The moderating roles of commitment to the leader and intergroup competition Though we contend that contract diversity is negatively related to team effectiveness, certain factors may mitigate its negative effect. We leverage social identity to focus specifically on two factors, commitment to leader and intergroup compe- tition, as possible boundary conditions of the contract diver- sity – social networks – team effectiveness relationship. These variables were selected because they are most proximal to facilitating a sense of belonging to a higher-order group, and support the formation of a superordinate identity in teams (van Dijk et al., 2017). In doing so, we present …