The psychological contract of low educated unemployed individuals

Transcription

1 The psychological contract of low educated unemployed individuals The influence of self-efficacy and future job perspectives. (789759) Driehoefijzersstraat CK Breda Dr. Charissa Freese Faculty of Social Behaviour January 2010 December 2010 Project theme: Psychological contract

2 Abstract The purpose of this study was to research the content of the psychological contract of low educated unemployed and the effect of self-efficacy and future job perspectives on the psychological contact. This study is very unusual, because the psychological contract is always studied within the context of an organization. In this case, there is no organization as a contract party. The organization is a fictional party. The expectations of low educated unemployed towards a future employer are being studied. The sample included 115 low educated unemployed, which follow reintegration programs at five different organizations. The psychological contract, self-efficacy and future job perspectives were measured by means of a written questionnaire. The Tilburg Psychological Contract Questionnaire (TPCQ) developed by Freese and Schalk (1997) was used, but was formulated to more simple Dutch to make the questionnaire more understandable to the respondents. Furthermore, the General Self Efficacy- scale (GSE) of Schwarzer and Jerusalem (1995) was used and a scale of Vinokur & Caplan (1987) and a scale of Vansteenkiste, Lens, De Witte and Feather (2005) to test the future job perspectives. Regression analysis showed a significant effect of self-efficacy on the psychological contract of low educated unemployed. Furthermore, it was found that the perceived organizational obligations positively affect the perceived employee obligations, which is in accordance with the Norm of Reciprocity of Gouldner (1960). Finally, this research shows that low educated unemployed value clear rules, open communication and honesty by the employer in an employment relationship. More research is needed on low educated, because it is a large group in the Dutch population with specific needs and expectations. Samenvatting In dit onderzoek wordt de inhoud van het psychologisch contract van laagopgeleide werklozen onderzocht en het effect van zelfvertrouwen en toekomst perspectieven op het psychologisch contract. Het is geen gebruikelijk onderzoek, omdat het psychologisch contract tot nu toe alleen onderzocht is in the context van een organisatie. In dit onderzoek is de organisatie gaan contract partij, maar een fictionele partij. Daarom worden slechts de verwachtingen van laagopgeleide werklozen naar een toekomstige werkgever bevraagd. Het onderzoek bestaat uit 115 laagopgeleide werklozen die reintegratieprogramma s volgen bij vijf verschillende organisaties. Het psychologisch contract, het zelfvertrouwen en de toekomstperspectieven zijn gemeten door middel van een vragenlijst. The Tilburgse Psychologisch Contract Vragenlijst (Freese & Schalk, 1997) is gebruikt in dit onderzoek, maar is vertaald naar gemakkelijker Nederlands om de vragen begrijpelijk te maken voor laagopgeleiden. The General Self-Efficacy- scale (GSE) van Schwarzer and Jerusalem - 2 -

3 (1995) is gebruikt om het zelfvertrouwen van der respondenten te meten en voor het meten van toekomstperspectieven is gekozen voor een schaal van Vinokur & Caplan (1987) en een schaal van Vansteenkiste, Lens, De Witte en Feather (2005). Door middel van regressie analyse is een significant effect gevonden van zelfvertrouwen op het psychologisch contract van laagopgeleide werklozen. Verder bleken de waargenomen organisatieverplichtingen een positieve invloed te hebben op de waargenomen werknemerverplichtingen, wat in overeenstemming is met de Norm of Reciprocity van Gouldner (1960). Ten slotte blijken laagopgeleide werklozen waarde te hechten aan open communicatie, duidelijke regels and eerlijkheid door de leidinggevende. Het is belangrijk dat er meer onderzoek komt naar deze doelgroep, want een groot deel van de Nederlandse samenleving is laagopgeleid en deze groep blijkt sterk te verschillen van hoger opgeleiden in hun verwachtingen en behoeften

4 1. Introduction In the Netherlands the percentage of people who are discouraged to find work in times of economic crisis increased with 13 percent in 2009 (Centraal Bureau voor Statistiek, 2009). They are discouraged because they do not expect to find a job. More than half of these discouraged people are low-educated (CBS, 2009). Wielers and Van der Meer (2003) described this phenomenon as the discouraged worker effects. In their research they give three different explanations for the high unemployment rate of low educated; the upgrading of the job structure, displacement by better educated workers and a sector shift from manufacturing to services. This sector shift might imply higher qualifications and more social skills, which low educated are less likely to have (Wielers & Van der Meer, 2003). There are more studies (De Beer, 2006; Wood, 1995) on the market position of low educated, but the actual expectations and beliefs of the low educated people are not included in these studies. However it is important to know the opinions of the low educated unemployed, because when society knows which specific needs they have and what they are willing to give in return, they can try to find solutions for the high unemployment rates among this group and help them find and keep a job. These beliefs and expectations individuals have in the context of an employment relationship can be seen as the psychological contract of that individual (Rousseau, 1990). Economic and labor market developments are likely to have an influence on this contract (Freese, 2007). Freese (2007) defines a psychological contract as: an employee s beliefs regarding mutual expectations and obligations, in the context of this relationship with the organization, which shape this relationship and govern the employee s behavior (p. 24). This definition is widely used in psychological contract research. The problem of applying this in this research on unemployed is that there is no organization as a contract party. However unemployed will have an understanding of the potential obligations that exist in an employment relationship. In this study this definition will be used, but the organization is a fictional party. Evaluation of actual fulfilment of the psychological contract is thus not possible, but revealing the content of these obligations is. Herriot, Manning and Kidd (1997) mention that most of the literature on the psychological contract is about psychological contract breach and less on the content of the contract. Breach occurs when the employee perceives divergence between what he or she believes that has been promised and what has been delivered by the organization (Morrison & Robinson, 1997). A more recent study by Bellou (2009) confirmed the findings of Herriot et al. (1997). She noted that still many studies focus on factors that cause reactions to psychological contract breach, rather than the content of the psychological contract itself. Because the understanding about the content of the psychological - 4 -

5 contract is very important if we want to create satisfying employment relationships based upon the psychological contract (Herriot, et al., 1997), it is decided to only study the content of the psychological contract. Furthermore, Roehling, Cavanaugh, Moynihan and Boswell (2000) noted in their research that there are differences in the psychological contract of different employee groups. Freese (2007) attributes these differences across people to cognitive limits, limited information and different frames of references. It is therefore expected that unemployed individuals will differ in their psychological contracts from employed individuals. Unemployed individuals might have been disappointed in former employment relationships and therefore not expect much from an organization. The current study looks into this understudied issue. There are a lot of studies on the different needs and requirements of certain groups of employees, for example differences in psychological contracts in different age groups (Freese & Schalk, 1995), differences between part-time and full-time employees (Schalk, Freese & Van den Bosch,1995; Dick, 2006), and employees in different career and life stages have different psychological contracts (Roehling et al., 2000). However, almost all studies on the psychological contract made use of young high educated employees (Freese, 2007), which is a gap in research, because Bellou (2009) found that there are differences in psychological contracts between high and low educated. Low educated felt less confident in themselves and underestimated their contribution towards the organization. Therefore they may ask less from an organization (Bellou, 2009). This is in accordance with the norm of reciprocity of Gouldner (1960). In this study will be discussed if this norm of Gouldner (1960) is applicable in a sample of low educated unemployed, it is questioned whether low educated unemployed can reciprocate in an employment relationship. The second theory which will be used to discuss the psychological contract of low educated unemployed, is the social exchange theory of Blau (1964). The degree of balance between employee and organizational obligations is described by this theory. It is expected that there will be an exchange relationship of mutually low obligations between low educated unemployed individuals and future employers. Engellandt and Riphahn (2005) found that low educated were less willing to contribute more than expected to an organization than higher educated, but on the other hand also not expect much from an organization because of former disappointed experiences in an employment relation. However, not only former working experiences might influence the expectations low educated have towards a future employer. Bellou (2009) found that self-efficacy also influences the expectations towards an employment relationship. Unemployed individuals might have lost their confidence in themselves, because of the uncertain situation they are in. Research by Netz & Raviv (2004) showed that there is a correlation between the confidence people have in themselves and educational level. When people have little trust - 5 -

6 in themselves, this might influence their demands towards organizations (Netz & Raviv, 2004). Thus, their trust affects their psychological contract. For this reason the influence of the self-efficacy of low educated unemployed on the psychological contract will be taken into account. Furthermore, Luszczynska, Scholz and Schwarzer (2005) noted in their study that self-efficacious individuals are more focused on their future and more optimistic about their own actions. The self-efficacy of individuals might affect the expectations individuals have towards finding a job in the near future (Luszczynska, et al., 2005). The effect of self-efficacy on these job finding perspectives will therefore also be studied in this research. Furthermore, a study by De Hauw and De Vos (2010) showed that a positive relationship exists between positive future job perspectives and expectations towards organizational obligations. In their study, the respondents had higher expectations towards a future employer, because of their optimistic view on their opportunities on the labor market (De Hauw & De Vos, 2010). Therefore, the future job perspectives of unemployed individuals and the influence of these perspectives on their psychological contract will also be studied. This leads to the following research questions: - What are the perceived employee obligations and perceived organizational obligations of low educated unemployed individuals? - Are self-efficacy and the future job perspectives of low educated unemployed individuals related to each other and to the content of the psychological contract? - 6 -

7 2. Theoretical framework 2.1 Future labor market perspectives for low educated in Dutch labor market In this study the psychological contract of low educated unemployed will be researched, but first there will be given a short outline on low educated in the current Dutch labor market to obtain some background information. According to the CBS (2010), the unemployment rate among low educated in the Netherlands is more than two times higher than the unemployment rate of higher educated. In this study low educated are defined as individuals with only primary school (Dutch: basisschool), or only the first phase of lbo/ vbo/ vmbo, mulo/ mavo, only the first three years of havo/vwo or MBO level one (ISCED, international Standard Classification of Education). De Beer (2006) describes, that the future perspectives for low educated individuals are bad, according to many scholars. In a report of the Social Economic Council (In Dutch: SER) (2006), these bad perspectives of low educated on the labor market are reflected in high unemployment risks, a low employment rate and a smaller chance on a permanent contract. Especially in times of an economic crisis, people need an education to increase their chance to find and keep a job. Wood (1995) found that low educated in developed countries like the Netherlands face increasing competition from emerging low-wage countries like China, India and Brazil. Because there is a lot of media attention to this problem, this seems to be the biggest threat to low educated individuals (De Beer, 2006). However, Levy and Murnane (1992) also mention an alternative explanation. They suggest that new upcoming technology requires higher educated workers and replaces the low educated. De Beer (2006) proved in his study on the perspectives of low educated that these two explanations are too pessimistic. He describes that the chance on unemployment is two times higher for low educated than high educated, but these relative chances have not changed over the past fifteen years. Therefore, it can not be concluded that the unemployment rate of low educated will increase in the future (De Beer, 2006). Furthermore, Wieler and Van der Meer (2003) also researched this upgrading of job structure as a consequence of the introduction of new technologies. Their results showed that the upgrading of the job structure was not the main cause for the bad labor market position of low educated individuals (Wieler & Van der Meer, 2003). Even though the perspectives are bad, they have not further deteriorated in the past ten years (De Beer, 2006; SER, 2006). Some final explanations for the high unemployment are also mentioned by De Beer (1996). He points out that low educated often have a temporary contract (CBS, 1995). Low educated with temporary contracts lose their job more often than higher educated individuals with a temporary contract (CBS, 1999). Because of all these factors, it is expected that the future labor market perspectives for low educated are not very optimistic. These perspectives will therefore be used further in this study, after describing the content of the psychological contract of low educated unemployed

8 2.2 Content of the psychological contract: Perceived Organizational Obligations of low educated Over the past decade, the popularity of research in psychological contracts has increased enormously (Bellou, 2009). However, it is very difficult to assess the actual content of the psychological contract (Freese, 2007). The beliefs regarding mutual obligations between employer and employee can be a result of the formal contract, but they may also come from expectations between the two parties, which can be communicated in very different and subtle ways (Herriot, Manning, & Kidd, 1997). For that reason, both parties can hold totally different expectations towards each other. This makes the content of the psychological contract person-bound (Freese, 2007) and subjective in nature (Bellou, 2009). Furthermore, Herriot et al. (1997) found in their study that there is no general agreement on the beliefs regarding the mutual obligations in psychological contracts yet. A standardized research measurement is therefore hard to develop (Freese, 2007). Nevertheless, Freese and Schalk (1997) noted that it is very important to keep studying the changing content of the psychological contract and how it should be measured, because the outcomes can be very useful for organizations. The psychological contract consists of perceived organizational obligations and perceived employee obligations (Rousseau, 1989). Some researchers have tried to make a list of items of what individuals expect to receive from their organization. For example, in a study by De Vos (2002) the organizational obligations included the items; Career development, Job content, Social Atmosphere, Financial rewards and Work-life balance. The Employee obligations consisted of In- and extra Role behavior, ethical behavior, loyalty and employability (De Vos, 2002). In this research, the expectations of low educated individuals towards their future employer are measured by the concepts; Job content, Career development, Social Atmosphere, Organizational policies, Work-Life Balance and Rewards (Freese & Schalk, 1997). The expectations towards employee obligations are formulated as In-role and Extrarole obligations (Freese & Schalk, 1997). To discuss the content of the psychological contract of low educated unemployed, it is important to keep in mind that there is not enough evidence in the existing literature on the influence of the educational level on the formation of the psychological contract (Bellou, 2009). Educational level is mostly used as a control variable to study psychological contract breach (Edwards, Rust, McKinley and Moon, 2003), but there is no research on the content of the psychological contract in relation to level of education (Bellou, 2009). Although there is limited research on the effect of educational level on the content of the psychological contract, the influence of educational level on employee behaviour, attitude and preferences has been measured (Bellou, 2009). The outcomes of these measures will be discussed and some expectations towards the content of the psychological contract of low educated unemployed will be given. First theory by De Witte (2005) on the impact of job insecurity can be used to translate expectations of low educated unemployed with regard to the content of the psychological contract. He - 8 -

9 states that job insecurity is problematic because of the uncertainty and unpredictability an individual has to deal with. De Witte (2005) describes three ways by which this uncertainty and unpredictability can be reduced; open communication, participating in decision making and increasing organizational justice. Unemployed individuals are in a very uncertain and unpredictable situation, because they do not have a job and do not know how long it will take until they find a new job. Because they have experienced a lot of uncertainty in their lives, it is expected that unemployed individuals will find these elements of De Witte (2005) to reduce uncertainty very important in a future employment relation. One of the scales of perceived organizational obligations is Organizational Policies. This scale includes items on open communication, participating in decision making and increasing organizational justice. It is therefore expected that low educated will perceive higher obligations with regard to Organizational Policies than to the other scales. Furthermore, low educated individuals might have less trust in their own abilities (Netz & Raviv, 2004). To gain more trust in themselves, it is expected that low educated will have greater expectations towards learning in the organization. Balkema and Molleman (1999) also suggested that lower educated value continuous learning in a job, because they are not able to manage difficult, non-routine tasks. The Career Development scale includes items on learning on the job, learning from the job and support from the employer to learn from the job. Low educated unemployed might therefore perceive higher obligations with regard to Career development. A study of Tausig and Fenwick (2001) will be used to create expectations of lowly educated unemployed with regard to Work Life Balance. They found that higher educated perceived more work-life imbalance in their job, although they did have more control on their work schedule, which should actually increase balance. Lower educated reported greater balance between work and their personal life (Tausig & Fenwick, 2001). It is expected that, because lower educated do not have problems with the balance between work and family, they will not find regulations on this matter very important in an employment relationship. Low educated might therefore perceive lower obligations with regard to Work Life Balance. Furthermore, Barnes (2003) showed in his study on work values that lower educated value the social life of the job more than the nature of the job. The nature of the job is similar to the Job Content scale in this study. The social life of the job is described by Barnes (2003) as the contact with fellow workers which the employee likes. This is similar to the Social Atmosphere scale in this study, because it includes items on working with co-workers. Bellou (2009) also mentioned in her study that employees with lower educational levels also wish for greater co-workers support (p. 823). It is therefore expected that the perceived obligations with regard to Social Atmosphere will be higher than the perceived obligations with regards to Job Content. Finally, this study by Barnes (2003) also showed that individuals with higher educational levels placed higher value on economic returns than - 9 -

10 individuals with only a high school diploma. Economic returns are defined as a value or goal associated with work which pays well and enables one to have the things he wants (Super, 1970, p. 9). The concept of Rewards consists of items on salary and payment and it is therefore expected that low educated will perceive lower obligations with regard to Rewards. This leads to the following hypothesis: Hypothesis 1: Low educated unemployed individuals will perceive higher obligations with regard to Organizational Policies, Career Development and Social Atmosphere than to Job Content, Work Life Balance and Rewards. 2.3 Reciprocity in the psychological contract of low educated In this next section the norm of reciprocity of Gouldner (1960) and the Social exchange approach of Blau (1964) will be used to formulate hypotheses on the reciprocity in the psychological contract of low educated unemployed Norm of reciprocity Bellou (2009) studied the content of psychological contract for different groups of employees. She wanted to identify the various preferences of employees, based on their gender, age and level of education. The results of her research suggested that employees with a lower education had lower expectations towards their employer, than higher educated employees. Individuals with higher levels of education may ask more from their organization, because they believe more in their own abilities and sometimes overestimate their contribution (Bellou, 2009). As Bellou (2009) noted this is in line with the norm of reciprocity of Gouldner (1960). This norm implies that individuals may only establish relationships with those who can reciprocate. An employee will only invest in his employment relationship when he expects to get something in return from his employer. Or as Bellou (2009, p. 823) defined it: the greater the contribution towards the organization, the greater the expectations as well. When looking at the norm of reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960), it is expected that low educated may not expect much from an organization and therefore not contribute much to an organization. Evidence for this expectancy was also found by Engellandt and Riphahn (2005). They found in their study that the education level had a positive influence on the willingness of employees to contribute more than expected to their organization. Low educated were less willing to contribute more than expected (Engellandt & Riphahn, 2005). Thus, the norm of reciprocity implies that if low educated not expect much from an organization, they also will not contribute much. However, it is questionable if this norm of Gouldner (1960) can be used in research on low educated unemployed and if there is reciprocity in an employment relationship within this group of individuals. Low educated can not add value to an organization because of specific knowledge or competencies they have. Low

11 educated often work in jobs in which it is not important who does the job. The only thing that is important is that the job is done in the time that is given. Thus, low educated can not exceed in a job because of specific knowledge or competence, but because of working hard. Maybe low educated unemployed have to invest more in an employment relationship, because when they do not, the employer will find enough other people that will. When following these last statements, low educated unemployed might not expect much from an organization as Bellou (2009) found, but have to invest more to keep a job. Because the norm of reciprocity has not been tested in a sample of low educated unemployed before, the following hypothesis is formulated to test if there is reciprocity within an exchange relationship of low educated unemployed: Hypothesis 2: The higher the level of perceived organizational obligations, the higher the level of perceived employee obligations Social exchange approach When looking at the psychological contract of individuals, one can also look at the exchange relationship between employer and employee. Shore and Barksdale (1998) studied the terms of balance and level of employer and employee obligations, from the employee s perspective. According to Shore and Barksdale (1998), there is balance in the exchange relationship when; employees perceive the level of employee and employer obligations within the psychological contract to be similar (p. 732). In social exchange between individuals, these obligations are only generally defined (Blau, 1964). When there is balance in the employment relation, there can be mutual high obligations and mutual low obligations (Shore & Barksdale, 1998). The exchange relationship is mutually low, when the employee does not put much effort into the employment relationship and does not expect a lot from the organization in return. The most positive attitudes and behaviours derive from a mutual high obligations relationship (Shore & Barksdale, 1998). When the employee obligations are high and the employer obligations low, there is an unbalanced relationship. This relationship is called; employee over-obligation relationship. Because of the relatively limited trust low educated have in themselves (Nurse & Devonish, 2007), they do not demand and expect much from an organization (Bellou, 2009). Furthermore, the former section discussed that when the expectations towards an employment relationship are low, the willingness to invest in this relationship might also be low. According to Shore and Barksdale (1998) this can be defined as an exchange relationship with mutually low obligations. It can therefore be hypothesized that: Hypothesis 3: The exchange relationship of low educated unemployed consists of mutually low obligations

12 2.4 Self-efficacy, future job perspectives and the psychological contract Self-efficacy is people's beliefs in their capabilities to deal with a broad range of stressful or challenging demands (Luszczynska, Scholz, & Schwarzer, 2005). It is important to look at the selfefficacy of low educated unemployed and its influence on the psychological contract, because there is a positive relationship between educational level and self-efficacy (Netz & Raviv, 2004). Individuals with more years of education have more confidence in themselves and therefore greater demands towards their employer (Netz & Raviv, 2004). On the other hand, low educated individuals have less trust in themselves. Their demands towards the organization were less high and they were more willing to accept what the organization offered, because of the limited confidence they had in themselves (Bellou, 2009). As Bandura (1997) describes, the self-efficacy of individuals influences behavior and can help in stressful situations, whereas in this study this stressful situation is the unemployment of the respondents. It is therefore expected that individuals with high self-efficacy will demand and expect more from an organization: Hypothesis 4a: The higher the level of self-efficacy of low educated unemployed individual, the higher the level of perceived organizational obligations. Furthermore, self-efficacy also has an indirect effect on behavior, because it influences predictors of behavior like outcome expectancies and intended goals (Bandura, 1997). As Luszczynska et al. (2005) noted self-efficacy influences which challenges people decide to meet and how high they set their goals (p ). Self-efficacious individuals set higher and more challenging goals for themselves and have stronger intentions (Luszczynska et al., 2005). It is therefore expected that this will also affect their own intended goals and obligations towards the organization. The following hypothesis is formulated: Hypothesis 4b: The higher the level of the self-efficacy of low educated unemployed individuals, the higher the level of perceived employee obligations. Luszczynska et al. (2005) describe that self-efficacious individuals not only set higher goals, but also focus more on their future. Individuals with high levels of self-efficacy believe in more positive outcomes of their actions and develop possible success scenarios of their actions (Luszczynska et al., 2005, p. 441). When individuals are optimistic about their own abilities, they are less anxious in uncertain situations (Bandura, 1997). It is therefore expected that self-efficacious individuals are more optimistic about finding a job and hold more positive future job perspectives. Hypothesis 4c: The higher the level of the self-efficacy of low educated unemployed individuals, the higher the future job perspectives

13 Finally, in accordance with the norm of reciprocity of Gouldner (1960), De Hauw and De Vos (2010) suggested in their study on Millennials that optimism towards finding a job, increases the confidence of individuals in their own contribution towards an organization and therefore create greater expectations towards an employer. It is expected that individuals who are optimistic about their opportunities on the labor market will express higher expectations about their future employment relationship (De Hauw & De Vos, 2010, p. 295). Furthermore, the study by Hauw and De Vos (2010) showed that high future job perspectives positively influence expectations towards job content, social atmosphere, career development and rewards. These four concepts are all measured in this study by the scale perceived organizational obligations. It can therefore by hypothesized that future job perspectives positively influence the expectations towards organizational obligations. The following hypothesis can therefore be made: Hypothesis 4d: The higher the future job perspectives of low educated unemployed, the higher the level of perceived organizational obligations. Following the hypotheses mentioned above, figure 1 represents the conceptual model which will be used during this study. Figure 1. Conceptual model Research by Bellou (2009) showed that both gender and age might influences individuals believes towards the content of the psychological contract, therefore they will be tested as control variables. Furthermore, when an individual is unemployed for a long time, this might affect their self-efficacy. For this reason the period of unemployment of the respondents will also be used as a control variable. And finally, the former working experience of the respondents might influence the expectations towards an organization. Former working experience will be used as control variables

14 3. Method a. Description of the sample The focus of the study was unemployed low educated individuals. This group was selected on their educational level and state of unemployment. There are 115 test subjects in this study from five different reintegration bureaus. The highest percentage of respondents was from Apprenti (43.5%), with a response rate of approximately 62.5%. 10.4% of the respondents was a client at Doe Mee. The response rate of this group was about 60%. A large part of the respondents (25.2%) worked at K*pabel, which had a response rate of 83%. 13% of the respondents was following classes at Capabel Taal and the response rate was approximately 37%. The lowest response rate was from the UWV, only 15%. 7.8% of the respondents was following training sessions at the UWV. As described earlier, gender, age, period of unemployment and previous working experience of the respondents will be used as control variables. A large part of the respondents was male, namely 67%. The mean age of the respondents was 35.5 years old, varying from 20 years old to 59 year old. More than a quarter of the respondent had a VMBO education and almost half of the respondents had an even lower education or no education at all. The mean of years the respondents had already worked was Some of the respondents had never worked before and the highest amount of worked years was 42 years (by the oldest respondent). The respondents had worked in different sectors before they got unemployed. 21.7% of the respondents worked in retail and 24.3% in construction. 13.9% of the respondents worked in the healthcare and 11.3 % had worked in production. The other 28.8% of the respondents worked in restaurants, cleaning or for the government. One of the respondents had worked at about 30 companies already, but the mean score on number of organizations was six. The percentage of respondents who had had a permanent contract in the past was 40.9%. Almost half of the respondents had worked in a temporary position and 31.3 % had a flexible contract. The highest percentage of respondents was unemployed for a year or longer (30.4%). Almost 23% was unemployed for three months or shorter % was unemployed for three to six months and 14.8% was unemployed for a period of six months to one year

15 Table 1: Demographic Data Control variables Std. Deviation Gender Male 67%.451 Female 26% Age Education No diploma 16.5% 1.96 Primary school 15.7% LBO or VBO 12.2% VMBO (MAVO) 27.0% HAVO 4.3% VWO 5.2% MBO 13.9% Years of work Number of organizations Type of contract Permanent 40.9%.501 Temporary 49.6%.499 Flexible 31.3%.480 Period of unemployment < 3 months 22.6% months 12.2% 6 12 months 14.8% >12 months 30.4% b. Procedure The re-formulation of the questionnaire was done in cooperation with Charissa Freese, Tilburg University, and coaches from the re-integration bureaus Capabel Taal and Apprenti. The respondents were approached differently in every organization. At the reintegration bureau Capabel Taal, the respondents followed plenary classes every week with a reintegration coach and the questionnaires were handed out at the beginning of the class. The researcher was also there to explain what the research is about and in case the respondents had questions about the questionnaire. The researcher also explained that complete anonymity was guaranteed. It was decided to give an explanation by the researcher instead of an accompanying letter, because this was more easy for the low educated. They did not have to read too much. After completing the questionnaire the respondent returned the questionnaire to the researcher. Apprenti handed out the questionnaires to the respondents in their introduction phase. When the clients of Apprenti start there reintegration program, they first have an introduction day in groups of

16 approximately ten persons. On this day, the clients were asked if they wanted to participate in the research. It was decided not to include the researcher in this phase, because this could disrupt the reintegration process. Therefore it is decided to make an accompanying letter with the questionnaire (Appendix 4). The respondents from the UWV were approached during training sessions. The questionnaires were put in return envelopes and handed out after the training. The respondents were asked to fill in the questionnaire and sent it by post to the researcher. The envelope included the same accompanying letter, used at Apprenti, which explained the research. The researcher also handed out some questionnaires at a Job Market (Banenmarkt), organised by the UWV. At Doe Mee, the respondents were approached by the reintegration coaches, during training sessions. After completing the questionnaire, the respondents had to hand in their questionnaire at their work coach. The reintegration coaches returned the completed questionnaires to the project coordinator. Doe Mee works with individuals who not only are unemployed, but also have psychological problems. However, the answers of these twelve respondents did not differ a lot from the other respondents. In the last company, K.Pabel, the researcher approached the respondents personally. At the workplace, the researcher asked people if they wanted to participate in the research. If they wanted to participate, they could fill in the questionnaire in small groups of three to five persons. The researcher handed out the questionnaires and explained the purpose of the research. During these sessions, the respondents could ask questions about the questionnaire. c. Instruments In this research the Tilburg Psychological Contract Questionnaire (TPCQ), developed by Freese and Schalk (1997), was used. This questionnaire included the items perceived organizational obligations and perceived employee obligations. All the scales in the questionnaire were reformulated to more simple Dutch, to make the questionnaire more understandable for the low educated. The original questionnaire also included questions on violation of the psychological contract, but because the respondents do not have a job, contract violation can not occur. Therefore these questions were also left out in this study. The General Self-Efficacy scale (GSE) (Schwarzer & Jerusalem, 1995) was used to test the confidence of low educated unemployed individuals. Finally, to test the future job perspectives of unemployed individuals, a scale by Vinokur & Caplan (1987) and a scale by Vansteenkiste, Lens, De Witte and Feather (2005) was used. The questionnaire is presented in appendix

17 Tilburg Psychological Contract Questionnaire (TPCQ) Perceived organizational obligations: The original scale consisted of the six sub-scales; Job Content, Career development, Social Atmosphere, Organizational policies, Work-Life Balance and Rewards. In this scale, high scores reflect high organizational obligations and low scores represent very low expectations towards organizational obligations. In the original questionnaire all scales included answers with a five point Likert-scale. But to make it more easy for low educated individuals, it was decided to make use of a four point scale in the current study. People often choose a safe answer in the middle and with a four point scale they can not. The answers are (1) strongly disagree, (2) disagree, (3) agree and (4) strongly agree. An example of a statement of the Rewards scale is: To what extend is the organization obligated to offer job security. Factor analysis was performed to test if the scale perceived organizational obligations still had these six underlying constructs after reformulating this scale to more simple Dutch. Principal Component Analysis was used to reveal the underlying components of the scale. The simple structure was revealed after maximizing the analysis to six component, however reliability analysis showed a very low Cronbach s alpha on one of the components. It was therefore decided to perform Principal Component Analysis with only five components, which revealed an even better simple structure. In the first Appendix, an extended version of the performed factor analysis is given. The names of the scales stayed the same, only the scale on Job Content is left out in the current study. The items of the original Job Content scale loaded better on the other five scales and the construct validity was also better. Thus, the scale Perceived Organizational Obligations in the current study consists of five subscales in stead of six subscales. The original Rewards scale had a Cronbach s alpha of.76 (8 items) and the scale on Rewards used in this study had a Cronbach s alpha of.84 (table 2). The Cronbach s alpha of the scale Career development in the original questionnaire was.80 (6 items), in the current study this scale had a Cronbach s alpha of.83 (table 3). Table 4 presents the Social Atmosphere scale (Cronbach s α =.79), which had an Cronbach s alpha of.84 in the original questionnaire (5 items). The original Organizational Policies scale consisted of eight items (Cronbach s α =.84), but in the current study the Cronbach s alpha was.79 and is presented in table 5. The last subscale was Work Life Balance (table 6), which had a Cronbach s alpha of.62 in this study and an alpha of.58 in the original questionnaire. The Job Content scale, which is left out in the current study, had a Cronbach s alpha of.78 (6 items)

18 Table 2: Rewards (9 items) Item Item R4 Zekerheid van goed salaris R3 Zekerheid geven van betaald werk R5 Extra betalen voor extra werk R6 Betalen voor cursussen R1 Zekerheid dat ik werk kan blijven doen R7 Goede secundaire arbeidsvoorwaarden R8 Extra betalen voor goed doen werk WLB2 Vrije dagen opnemen wanneer ik wil R2 Zekerheid geven dat bij bedrijf kan blijven Table 3: Career Development (6 items) Item Item CD2 Extra dingen leren door cursus CD6 Alles wat ik weet kan gebruiken in werk CD3 Begeleiden om beter te worden CD5 Veel leer van mijn werk CD4 Door werk dingen leer voor buiten organisatie CD1 Na een tijd hoger werk kan doen Table 4: Social Atmosphere (7 items) Item Item SA1 Gezellig op werk OP8 Zorgen dat ik in bedrijf geloof SA4 Zorgen dat ik complimenten krijg OP6 Zorgen dat wij elkaar alles kunnen vertellen SA2 Plezierig kan werken met collega s OP7 Veel verschillende mensen werken SA3 Geholpen worden door collega s Table 5: Organizational Policies (6 items) Item Item OP4 Zorgen voor duidelijke en eerlijke regels OP5 Vertellen over nieuwe dingen in het bedrijf OP2 Baas moet eerlijk zijn OP1 Mee denken en beslissen OP3 Vertellen wat ik goed of fout doe JC6 Werk goed kan doen Table 6: Work Life Balance (6 items) Item Item JC4 Leuk werk WLB1 Naar me luisteren als er iets mis is thuis JC5 Zelf beslissen in werk WLB3 Thuis kunnen werken JC3 Niet te druk op werk WLB4 Soms op andere tijden werken

19 Perceived employee obligations: The original scale was divided into the sub-scales In-role Obligations and Extra-role Obligations. The original questionnaire used a five point Likert-scale, but as described in the former section, it was also decided to use a four-point scale, with the responses (1) strongly disagree, (2) disagree, (3) agree and (4) strongly agree. An example of a statement is: To what extent do you feel obligated to cooperate well with your colleges. High scores on these items represent high perceived employee obligations and vice versa. Factor analysis was also used to measure the underlying constructs of perceived employee obligations, because of the reformulation of the scale. The scale still consisted of the two subscales In-role Obligations (Cronbach s α =.86) and Extra-role Obligations (Cronbach s α =.83), only one item differs from the original scale. The items included in the scales are presented in the following tables (7 and 8). In the original questionnaire, the In-role Obligations scale consisted of 11 items and had a Cronbach s alpha of.86. Extra-role Obligations, with a Cronbach s alpha of.82, included 11 items in the original scale. Table 7: In-role Obligations (12 items) Item Item Inrole6 Werk goed doen Inrole11 Met collega s zorgen voor gezelligheid op werk Inrole5 Eerlijk zijn Inrole4 Dingen die ik liever niet doe toch doen Inrole9 Houden aan regels en afspraken van de baas Inrole10 Geen slechte dingen over bedrijf zeggen Inrole7 Voorzichtig omgaan met spullen van baas Inrole2 Collega s goed helpen Inrole3 Klanten goed helpen Inrole8 Dingen die niet over werk gaan thuis doen Inrole1 Goed samenwerk Extrarole11 Graag paar jaar bij bedrijf blijven Table 8: Extra-role Obligations (10 items) Item Item Extrarole7 Opleidingen doen voor andere baan Extrarole6 Indien nodig in weekend werken Extrarole2 Buiten werktijd opleidingen doen Extrarole1 Blijven leren voor werk Extrarole9 Ander werk goed vinden Extrarole8 Ander werk willen en kunnen doen Extrarole10 In ander dorp of stad werken Extrarole4 Uit mezelf extra dingen doen Extrarole5 Extra werken om werk af te krijgen Extrarole3 Ideeën geven om werk te verbeteren The General Self-Efficacy scale This scale consisted of 10 items and possible answers are (1) not at all true, (2) hardly true, (3) moderately true and (4) exactly true. To keep the questionnaire more simple for the respondents in this study, it was decided to use the same answers as in the TPCQ for this scale. The GSE scale is available in 28 languages and showed high reliabilities in different studies and countries, varying from a

20 Cronbach s alpha of.86 to.94. In this study the Cronbach s alpha was.89, which is an excellent alpha. A statement in the scale is: Thanks to my resourcefulness, I can handle unforeseen situations. High scores on the scale reflect high self efficacy and low score reflect low trust in themselves. The Future Job Perspectives scale This scale consisted of the Perceived instrumentality scale (Vinokur & Caplan, 1987) and the Expectation of finding a job scale (Vansteenkiste, Lens, De Witte & Feather, 2005). The scale by Vinokur and Caplan (1987) is a one item scale: How likely is it for you that if you try hard to get a job in the next four months you will get one? Answers were indicated on a 7-point scale that ranged from extremely likely to extremely unlikely. The scale by Vansteenkiste et al. (2005) included three items and the internal consistency was.60. A statement in this scale is: I am optimistic about finding a job in the near future. To keep the questionnaire more simple, it is decided to use a 4-point scale and the possible answers are (1) strongly disagree, (2) disagree, (3) agree and (4) strongly agree. In this study the reliability of the scale is not very high, Cronbach s alpha of only.67. High scores on this scale reflect positive future job perspectives and low score reflect a negative view towards finding a job. d. Statistical analysis: Hypotheses testing To test the first hypothesis, the mean scores of the perceived organizational obligations needed to be compared with each other, to measure which obligations were perceived high by the respondents. This was tested with a General Linear Model, one way repeated measures ANOVA. To test hypotheses 2 and 4a, b c and d, sum scores needed to be made of the scales, perceived organizational obligations, perceived employee obligations, self-efficacy and future job perspectives. These sum scores were used in regression analysis to test the main effects. To test the third hypothesis, the mean of the sum score of perceived employee obligations needed to be compared with the mean of the sum score of perceived organizational obligations. This was also tested with a General Linear Model, one way repeated measures ANOVA. To test if the obligations are high or low, a norm was set. All values above 2 are referred to as high perceived obligations and values lower than 2 are referred to as low perceived obligations

21 4. Results In table 7 the means, standards deviations and between individual correlations among the variables are presented. As can be seen, Perceived Organizational Obligations, Perceived Employee Obligations and General Self-Efficacy are all positively related to each other and statistically significant. Future Job Perspectives does not show significant correlations with the other variables. The control variable Age correlates with General Self-Efficacy. It is therefore decided to control for the possible effect of age in this research. This will be done with hierarchical multiple regression analysis. The other control variables do not correlate with the variables in the conceptual model. It is therefore decided not to control for them in the analyses. Table 7: Correlations M SD Correlations PO Obligations 102, PE Obligations ** - 3 General Self-Efficacy **.521** - 4 Future Job Perspectives Age * Gender Years of work ** Years of unemployment * Number of organizations **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). The first hypothesis stated that low educated unemployed will perceive higher obligations with regard to Organizational Policies, Career Development and Social Atmosphere than to Job Content, Work Life Balance and Rewards. A one-way repeated measures ANOVA was used to compare the means of the subscales of Perceived Organizational Obligations. The means and standard deviations are presented in table 8. There was a statistically significant effect between the different subscales of Perceived Organizational Obligations. The Wilks Lambda was.354, F (4, 102) = , p < and a multivariate partial eta squared of.646 which is a very large effect size (Cohen, 1988, pp ). As can be seen in Table 8, only five scales where used to test hypothesis one. This is because factor analysis revealed only five subscales of Perceived Organizational Obligations in the sample of this research. Therefore, the former Job Content scale can not be tested