Objective Threat of Unemployment and Situational UncertaintyDuring a Restructuring: Associations with Perceived JobInsecurity and Strain

Nele De Cuyper Æ Hans De Witte Æ Tinne Vander Elst ÆYasmin Handaja

Published online: 21 August 2009

� Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Abstract

Purpose This study investigates objective threat of unem-

ployment and situational uncertainty following restructuring

in relation to perceived job insecurity and associated strain.

Design/Methodology We sampled workers (N = 122)

from a Belgian service organization that had recently

announced its intention to downsize. Objective threat of

unemployment was present in workers who were informed

about dismissal. Situational uncertainty was high among

workers for whom the decision about dismissal was

pending. There was a low objective threat of unemploy-

ment and low situational uncertainty in workers who were

informed that their jobs were safe. Analyses were done

with Structural Equation Modelling.

Findings Objective threat of unemployment associated

positively with perceived job insecurity. Perceived job

insecurity, in turn, associated positively with strain, and it

carried the relationship between objective threat of unem-

ployment and strain (mediation). Surprisingly, we also

established a direct and negative association between

objective threat of unemployment and strain. Finally, no

significant associations were found between situational

uncertainty and perceived job insecurity, and between sit-

uational uncertainty and strain.

Implications This study contributes to the conceptual

debate as to which factors are critical in the development of

perceptions of job insecurity and associated strain in the

context of restructurings.

Keywords Job insecurity � Emotional exhaustion �Vigour � Restructuring � Threat of unemployment �Uncertainty

Introduction

Scholars and health practitioners alike have expressed

concerns about the many restructurings and downsizings,

and their contribution to employee strain (Greenglass and

Burke 2000). This has brought issues related to job inse-

curity to the fore: Job insecurity concerns the workers’

perception and associated worries about potential invol-

untary job loss (De Witte 1999; Van Vuuren et al. 1991).

The general assumption is that restructurings prompt feel-

ings of job insecurity, which then lead the workers to

develop strain (Bussing 1999). This aligns with the com-

monly accepted idea that objective circumstances give rise

to a subjectively experienced reality that is a more proxi-

mate cause for strain (Katz and Kahn 1978). However,

restructurings present a complex reality, and hence, it is

unclear what it is about restructurings that triggers per-

ceptions of job insecurity and associated strain.

We see two factors in restructurings that have particular

resonance in the context of job insecurity research: The

first factor concerns objective threat of unemployment; for

example, when workers are informed about dismissal. The

second factor concerns situational uncertainty; for exam-

ple, when lay-offs are announced but not yet communi-

cated to the workers involved. These factors are likely

Received and reviewed by former editor, George Neuman.

N. De Cuyper (&) � H. De Witte � T. Vander Elst � Y. Handaja

Research Group for Work, Organization and Personnel

Psychology, K.U. Leuven, Tiensestraat 102,

3000 Leuven, Belgium

e-mail: nele.decuyper@psy.kuleuven.be

N. De Cuyper

FWO-Vlaanderen, Brussels, Belgium

123

J Bus Psychol (2010) 25:75–85

DOI 10.1007/s10869-009-9128-y

present in all restructurings, and they may underlie per-

ceptions of job insecurity (De Witte 1999; Sverke et al.

2002). Perceived job insecurity is often portrayed as a

stressor, hence causing strain (Sverke et al. 2002). A

plausible assumption then is that objective threat of

unemployment and situational uncertainty associate with

strain through felt job insecurity. Unfortunately, method-

ological problems make it difficult to test this assumption;

the core problem being that the isolation of these factors is

difficult in most restructurings.

This study presents one of the first attempts to test the

hypothesis that felt job insecurity mediates the relationship

between objective threat of unemployment and situational

uncertainty on the one hand, and strain on the other hand. To

do so, we sampled workers from a single organization that

had shortly before communicated decisions about future

employment prospects to some workers, but not yet to others.

Objective threat of unemployment and situational uncertainty

are described in terms of the workers’ objective employment

status in the restructuring along two dimensions; namely (a)

whether the workers received information about their future

employment prospects or not, and (b) if they had received

information about their future employment prospects, what

the nature of the decision was; i.e., dismissal or continued

employment. Part (a) reflects situational uncertainty, and part

(b) objective threat of unemployment. Strain is seen in terms

of emotional exhaustion and vigour. These variables repre-

sent variations of an underlying global energy dimension, and

they form the core dimensions of burnout and engagement,

respectively (Gonzalez-Roma et al. 2006; Schaufeli and

Bakker 2001, 2004).

Literature Review and Hypotheses

In general, organizational restructurings and downsizings

relate to various indicators of strain. Examples of strain

reactions vis-a-vis organizational restructuring are strong

emotional responses, such as anxiety (Layton 1987), anger,

hostility (Greenglass and Burke 2000), resignation and sad-

ness (Tang and Crofford 1999). A second class of strain

indicators are attitudinal responses. For example, Bussing

(1999) showed that workers from an organization with a past

of downsizing and with present financial difficulties were

less satisfied with their jobs than workers from another

organization without economic turmoil. Similarly, Armstrong-

Stassen (2002) and Petterson et al. (2005) established lon-

gitudinal evidence on the impact of restructuring on reduced

organizational commitment, and reduced loyalty and trust. A

third set of strain indicators are withdrawal behaviours, such

as long-term absenteeism (Vahtera and Kivimaki 1997).

Finally, organizational restructuring also implies strain in the

form of poor health and well-being: In this respect, Ferrie

et al. (1998a, b) established a relationship between organi-

zational restructuring and a number of physiological risk

factors (e.g., body mass index, cholesterol concentration,

sleeping problems), and between restructuring and self-

reported morbidity. In a similar vein, the longitudinal study

by Kivimaki et al. (2001) shows a decline in employees’ self-

rated health after downsizing. Therefore, a plausible

assumption is that restructuring also associate with strain in

the form of higher emotional exhaustion and lower vigour.

A key factor in explaining strain associated with

restructuring is felt job insecurity. The general idea is that

restructurings and downsizings in particular lead workers to

appraise their job as insecure, with job insecurity being

perhaps one of the most potent stressors in the contemporary

labour market (De Witte 1999), hence, implying strain.

Support for the reasoning that restructuring ? perceived job

insecurity ? strain comes from the studies by Bussing

(1999) and Berntson et al. (2007), and from earlier studies in

the realm of job insecurity research: Bussing (1999) as well

as Berntson et al. (2007) established a significant relationship

between membership of an organization in economic turmoil

and perceived job insecurity. Perceived job insecurity, in

turn, is known to associate with strain (for reviews, see e.g.,

De Witte 1999, 2005; for meta-analyses, see Cheng and Chan

2008; Sverke et al. 2002). For example, perceived job inse-

curity relates to job dissatisfaction (Ashford et al. 1989;

Heaney et al. 1994) and reduced engagement (De Cuyper and

De Witte 2005). Similarly, high job insecure compared with

low job insecure workers are likely to report poor physical

and mental health (Landsbergis 1988; Roskies and Louis-

Guerin 1990). Moreover, longitudinal research suggests that

perceived job insecurity affects well-being, which argues

against the possibility of reversed causation: Evidence has

been established for causal effects of perceived job insecu-

rity on reduced job satisfaction (Nelson et al. 1995), burnout

(Dekker and Schaufeli 1995), and poor physical well-being

(Ferrie et al. 1998a, b; Hellgren et al. 1999). Taking this

evidence one step further, we assume that perceived job

insecurity mediates the relationship between restructurings

and strain in the form of higher emotional exhaustion and

lower vigour.

Perhaps the most obvious way to test this mediation

assumption is to compare workers from an organization in

restructuring and workers from another organization. At the

most aggregate level, such comparisons basically concern

between-organization differences (Berntson et al. 2007;

Bussing 1999). The problem with such comparisons is that

they lump together different potentially stressful factors that

are present in restructurings. In our view, a more detailed

account would probe the contribution of such factors to the

development of feelings of job insecurity and strain. In this

study, we focus upon objective threat of unemployment and

situational uncertainty.

76 J Bus Psychol (2010) 25:75–85

123

First, restructurings present an objective threat of unem-

ployment, particularly among workers who have heard that

their job is at stake. Such a threat elicits, almost by definition,

feelings of job insecurity among the workers. Objective

threat of unemployment may also associate with strain:

Faced with the threat of unemployment, workers may

anticipate the frustration of needs that are otherwise satisfied

by working, such as acquiring an income, establishing social

contacts outside the family environment and opportunities

for development, for example (Jahoda 1982); an anticipation

that may lead to strain in much the same way as unemploy-

ment or, according to some authors, that may lead to more

strain compared with unemployment (De Witte 1999;

Lazarus and Folkman 1984). This seems to suggest media-

tion, so that the relationship between threat of unemploy-

ment associated with restructurings and strain is carried by

perceived job insecurity. This leads to hypothesis 1:

Hypothesis 1: Perceived job insecurity mediates the

relationship between objective threat of unemployment and

strain.

Second, many workers in a restructuring situation are in

an objectively uncertain situation, for example when deci-

sions about possible lay-offs are pending but not yet com-

municated. Situational uncertainty may lead to feelings of

unpredictability and uncontrollability among the workers

(Furda and Meijman 1992); both are traditionally portrayed

as core components to perceived job insecurity (Dekker and

Schaufeli 1995; De Witte 1999; Greenhalgh and Rosenblatt

1984). Unpredictability and uncontrollability fall under the

heading of environmental unclarity as defined in Warr’s

Vitamin Model (Warr 1987), which has obvious similarities

with perceived job insecurity. Furthermore, evidence on the

relationship between situational uncertainty in the form of

unpredictability and uncontrollability and strain is plenty,

and comes also from experimental designs (Folkman et al.

1979; Peterson et al. 1993). Unpredictability is stressful

because the worker does not know what exactly will happen

in the future, and hence, how to react best. Uncontrollability

implies feelings of helplessness and difficulties in call-

ing upon appropriate coping mechanisms. A plausible

assumption then is that perceived job insecurity mediates

the relationship between situational uncertainty following

restructuring and strain, as follows:

Hypothesis 2: Perceived job insecurity mediates the

relationship between situational uncertainty and strain.

Note that hypotheses 1 and 2 are not mutually exclusive,

but instead complement each other. The present study’s

design provided us with a unique opportunity to test these

hypotheses. We surveyed workers from a single organiza-

tion when change was ongoing and after the organization

had announced its intention to downsize. Shortly before

data-collection, the organization had communicated deci-

sions about possible dismissal to each of the workers indi-

vidually. There were three types of decisions: (1) the worker

was informed that his or her job was safe (‘survivor’), (2)

the worker was informed about dismissal (‘victim’), (3) the

worker was informed that the decision about dismissal or

not was pending (‘undecided’). These decisions can be

understood in terms of objective employment status, as

follows: Objective threat of unemployment was higher

among victims than among survivors and workers in the

undecided group. Situational uncertainty was higher among

workers in the undecided group than among future survi-

vors and victims.

Method

Data Collection and Sample

During summer 2006, survey data were collected in a

Belgian service organization among Dutch-speaking

respondents. During the previous year, the organization had

launched communications about upcoming restructurings

and then officially announced its intention to downsize

with a view of achieving increased cost-efficiency. At the

moment of the survey, communications about the workers’

employment prospects in the organization were ongoing:

Some workers were informed about either dismissal (vic-

tims) or continued employment (survivors) upon the com-

pletion of organizational change in 2008, while others were

still awaiting a decision (undecided). At the time of data-

collection, none of the workers had left the organization.

All 330 workers of this organization were invited to

participate. Questionnaires together with stamped addres-

sed envelopes were sent to the workers’ home addresses to

guarantee anonymity and confidentiality and to maximize

respondents’ candidness. Participation was voluntary.

Hundred and twenty-nine questionnaires were returned

(response rate 39%), which we considered acceptable given

the delicate research topic and data gathering in a single

organization.

More men (N = 103, 80%) than women (N = 26, 20%)

and more white collar workers and managers (N = 100,

78%) than blue collar workers (N = 28, 22%) participated

in the study. Mean age of the sample was 37.9 years

(SD = 8.20), ranging from 23 years to 56 years. About half

of the sample was unionized (N = 70; 55%), while the

others did not join the union (N = 58, 45%). We did not

have access to organizational records; hence, we could not

investigate the possibility of any systematic response bias.

However, we consulted the organization’s Human Resource

manager, who confirmed that this pattern was in line with

population figures.

J Bus Psychol (2010) 25:75–85 77

123

Measures

Objective threat of unemployment and situational uncer-

tainty were measured in relation to the workers’ objective

employment status in the restructuring process. We asked

the respondents how the downsizing would affect their

position. According to the communication of the organi-

zation to each of the workers individually, three conditions

were distinguished: (1) Continued employment (‘survi-

vors’; N = 57, 47%), (2) dismissal (‘victims’; N = 37;

30%), and (3) no decision yet (‘undecided’; N = 28; 23%).

This was recoded in two dummy variables: In the first

dummy variable, we compared victims (1) to survivors (0)

and workers from the undecided group (0) to reflect a sit-

uation in which the objective threat of unemployment was

high. In the second dummy variable, we compared workers

from the undecided group (1) to survivors (0) and victims

(0) to reflect a situation of high uncertainty. Thus, survivors

were used as the reference group.

Perceived job insecurity was measured with four items

that were developed by De Witte (2000). Respondents

had to indicate their agreement (1 = strongly disagree;

5 = strongly agree) with items such as ‘I feel insecure

about the future of my job’ and ‘I am sure I can keep my

job’ (reverse coded). Reliability (Cronbach’s alpha)

equalled .86. An important note is that these items were

presented in Dutch; a language that does not have words

available to distinguish between insecurity and uncertainty

(see Appendix).

Strain was measured in terms of an underlying energy

dimension, with emotional exhaustion at the negative pole

and vigour at the positive pole. Emotional exhaustion was

measured with five items from the Utrecht Burnout Scale

(Schaufeli and Van Dierendonck 1994), for example ‘I feel

mentally exhausted because of my job’. Responses were

made on a 7-point scale (0 = never; 6 = always). Reli-

ability (Cronbach’s alpha) equalled .90. Finally, vigour was

a five-item scale that originated from the 15-item Utrecht

Work Engagement Scale (Schaufeli and Bakker 2001,

2004). Responses varied from 0 (never) to 6 (always).

Sample items are ‘At my work, I feel bursting with energy’

and ‘At my job, I feel strong and vigorous’. Reliability

(Cronbach’s alpha) equalled .87 (see Appendix).

Analyses

Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) with the AMOS

software package (Arbuckle 2003) was used to test our

hypotheses. After listwise deletion, our sample included

122 cases. In all analyses, the Maximum Likelihood

Estimation Method and the covariance matrix were used.

Note that we considered a number of potentially relevant

control variables, including age, tenure, union member-

ship, and occupational position. None of these variables

affected the results to any significant extent. We there-

fore decided not to include them in the final set of

analyses.

We followed a two-step procedure, much in line with

the recommendations by Anderson and Grebing (1988).

First, we performed a confirmatory factor analysis in view

of testing the measurement model. This was done to

establish discriminant validity and to inspect risks associ-

ated with common method variance (Podsakoff et al.

2003). We included perceived job insecurity with four

observed indicators, and emotional exhaustion and vigour

with five observed indicators each in the analyses, and we

compared the hypothesized three-factor model to all

possible two-factor models and to the one-factor model.

Correlations between the factors were allowed.

Second, upon satisfactory fit of the three-factor model,

we continued with the comparison of two competing

structural models. We saw two causes for concern in the

test of the structural models: (1) The fairly small sample

size, and (2) the fairly high correlation between emotional

exhaustion and vigour (r = -.56, p \ .001). As respects

(1), we decided to reduce the number of variables in the

model. In particular, we used the scale score of perceived

job insecurity and not the latent factor with observed

indicators. We accounted for random measurement error

following the recommendations by Bollen (1989): The

unstandardized factor loading of the indicator was set to 1,

and the error variance equalled the scale’s variance mul-

tiplied by one minus the scale’s reliability. As respects (2),

we used the scale scores of emotional exhaustion and

vigour as indicators of a general strain factor, much in line

with Gonzalez-Roma et al. (2006) who see emotional

exhaustion and vigour as a general energy dimension. This

also contributed to the reduction of variables. The models

were as follows: Model 1 included direct structural paths

from objective threat of unemployment and from situa-

tional uncertainty to perceived job insecurity, and from

perceived job insecurity to strain. Model 2 included two

additional paths; namely from objective threat of unem-

ployment to strain, and from situational uncertainty to

strain (Fig. 1).

Model fit was assessed with Chi-square, the Goodness of

Fit Index (GFI), the Bentler Comparative Fit Index (CFI),

and the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation

(RMSEA). The CFI and RMSEA were chosen because they

are less sensitive to sample size. Values of .94 or higher for

the GFI and the CFI, and values lower than .08 for the

RMSEA indicated good fit. Comparison of model fit was

done with the Chi-Square difference test (Hu and Bentler

1999).

78 J Bus Psychol (2010) 25:75–85

123

Results

Descriptive Statistics: Means, Standard Deviations

and Correlations

Information about means, standard deviations and correla-

tions are shown in Table 1. As expected, there was a positive

correlation between objective threat of unemployment and

perceived job insecurity. However, objective threat of

unemployment did not correlate significantly with emotional

exhaustion or vigour. There were no significant correlations

between situational uncertainty on the one hand and per-

ceived job insecurity, emotional exhaustion, and vigour on

the other hand. Furthermore, perceived job insecurity cor-

related negatively to vigour, but no significant association

was found between perceived job insecurity and emotional

exhaustion. Finally, there was a negative and fairly large

correlation between emotional exhaustion and vigour.

Table 2 presents the means for emotional exhaustion,

vigour and perceived job insecurity, separately for the three

groups of workers; namely survivors, victims and workers in

the undecided group. Differences for emotional exhaustion,

vigour and perceived job insecurity were all significant, F (2,

119) = 6.40, p \ .01, F (2, 119) = 5.27, p \ .01, and F (2,

119) = 5.95, p \ .01, respectively. Post-hoc comparisons

with Bonferroni corrections showed that victims scored

lower on emotional exhaustion and higher on vigour com-

pared to survivors. They were also more insecure compared

with both survivors and workers in the undecided group.

Measurement Models

A measurement model with three latent factors was fitted to

the data: Perceived job insecurity with four observed

indicators, and emotional exhaustion and vigour with five

observed indicators each. Correlations between the factors

were allowed. This model provided a satisfactory fit, v2

(74, N = 122) = 101.49, p = .02, GFI = .90, CFI = .97,

RMSEA = .06. Factor loadings for perceived job insecurity

ranged between .65 and –.92, for emotional exhaustion

between .74 and .85, and for vigour between .61 and .91,

all significant.

The three-factor model fitted the data better than the

three alternative two-factor models or the one-factor model:

(1) v2 (76, N = 122) = 247.86, p \ .001, GFI = .70,

CFI = .83, RMSEA = .14 for the model in which the items

for perceived job insecurity loaded on one factor, and the

items for emotional exhaustion and vigour on a second

factor; (2) v2 (76, N = 122) = 439.12, p \ .001, GFI =

.58, CFI = .63, RMSEA = .20 for the model in which the

items for perceived job insecurity and vigour loaded on one

factor, and the items for emotional exhaustion on the second

factor; (3) v2 (76, N = 122) = 377.15, p \ .001, GFI =

.69, CFI = .70, RMSEA = .18 for the model in which the

items for perceived job insecurity and emotional exhaustion

loaded on one factor, and the items for vigour on the second

factor; (4) v2 (77, N = 122) = 520.00, p \ .001, GFI =

.57, CFI = .55, RMSEA = .22 for the model in which all

items were lumped together to load on a single latent factor.

Structural Models

In Model 1, we modelled paths from objective threat of

unemployment and situational uncertainty to perceived

job insecurity, and from perceived job insecurity to strain.

The fit was as follows: v2 (4, N = 122) = 14.39, p = .006,

GFI = .96, CFI = .90, RMSEA = .14. In Model 2, two

additional paths were introduced; namely from objective

threat of unemployment to strain, and from situational

uncertainty to strain with the following fit: v2 (2, N =

-.33***.38***

-.81***

.69***

-.13

-.41**

.03

.45***

Objective threat of unemployment

Situational uncertainty

Perceived job insecurity Strain

Emotional exhaustion

Vigour

Model 1

Model 2

Fig. 1 Structural model. ** p \ .01; *** p \ .001

J Bus Psychol (2010) 25:75–85 79

123

122) = 2.30, p = .32, GFI = .99, CFI = .99, RMSEA =

.03. The Chi-square difference test showed that Model 2 was

better than Model 1, Dv2 (2, N = 122) = 12.09, p \ .01.

Figure 1 presents the path coefficients for Model 2. We

established that objective threat of unemployment related

positively to perceived job insecurity, and that perceived job

insecurity related positively to strain. The Sobel test (Sobel

1982) furthermore supported the idea that perceived job

insecurity mediated the association between objective threat

of unemployment and strain, Sobel’s Statistic = 2.61,

p \ .01. This supported hypothesis 1. However, we also

established a direct and negative association between

objective threat of unemployment and strain: This suggested

that the mediation by perceived job insecurity was partial.

Situational uncertainty did not associate significantly

with perceived job insecurity. This was however, condi-

tional for the assumption that perceived job insecurity

would mediate the relationship between situational uncer-

tainty and strain. Hence, no support was found for

hypothesis 2. Furthermore, we did not establish a significant

association between situational uncertainty and strain.1

In sum, the results suggested that the variance explained

in perceived job insecurity (20%) was mainly attributed to

objective threat of unemployment, and not to situational

uncertainty. The amount of variance explained in strain

(17%) was attributed to two distinct processes: (1) A direct

effect from objective threat of unemployment to strain, so

that workers with the highest objective threat of unem-

ployment (i.e., victims) reported less strain than other

workers (i.e., survivors and the undecided group); and (2)

an indirect effect through perceived job insecurity so that

workers with the highest objective threat of unemployment

(i.e., victims) reported more strain than other workers (i.e.,

survivors and workers from the undecided group) owing to

perceptions of job insecurity.

Discussion

Summary and Interpretation

This study presented an in-depth analysis of two factors

that are typical for restructurings, while at the same time

assumed core to perceptions of job insecurity and associ-

ated strain: Objective threat of unemployment and situa-

tional uncertainty. The study design presented a parade

case to distinguish objective threat of unemployment from

Table 1 Means, standard deviations and intercorrelations (N = 122)

M SD 1 2 3 4 5

1. Objective threat of unemploymenta – -.33*** .44*** -.16 .13

2. Situational uncertaintyb – -.13 -.07 -.04

3. Perceived job insecurityc 3.51 .96 (.86) .16 -.18*

4. Emotional exhaustiond 2.18 1.25 (.90) -.56***

5. Vigourd 3.37 1.08 (.87)

Reliabilities are between brackets on the diagonala 1 = victims, 0 = survivors and undecided groupb 1 = undecided group; 0 = survivors and victimsc Scale from 1 to 5d Scale from 0 to 6

* p \ .05; ** p \ .01; *** p \ .001

Table 2 Means on strain and job insecurity for the three employment

status groups, and Post-hoc tests for differences

1

Survivors

n = 57

2

Victims

n = 37

3

Undecided

n = 28

FPost-hoc

test

Emotional exhaustion 2.71 1.49 2.16 2 \ 1

Vigour 2.98 3.98 3.30 2 [ 1

Perceived job

insecurity

3.18 4.02 3.36 2 [ 1, 3

1 Note that we ran similar analyses in which emotional exhaustion

and vigour were kept separate. Results were comparable to those

reported for models in which emotional exhaustion and vigour loaded

Footnote 1 continued

on a general strain factor: First, Model 2 (v2 (1, N = 122) = 2.89,

p = .09, GFI = .99, CFI = .98, RMSEA = .12) fitted the data better

than Model 1 v2 (5, N = 122) = 18.27, p = .003, GFI = .95,

CFI = .87, RMSEA = .15). Second, the path coefficients were vir-

tually the same: Objective threat of unemployment related positively

to perceived job insecurity (b = .45, p \ .001), negatively to emo-

tional exhaustion (b = -.36, p \ .001), and positively to vigour

(b = .25, p \ .05). The paths from situational uncertainty to per-

ceived job insecurity (b = .03), emotional exhaustion (b = -.16)

and vigour (b = .01) were not significant. Perceived job insecurity

related positively to emotional exhaustion (b = .31, p \ .001), and

negatively to vigour (b = -.28, p \ .01).

80 J Bus Psychol (2010) 25:75–85

123

situational uncertainty in workers from a single organiza-

tion with ongoing change and planned downsizing. We

assumed that objective threat of unemployment was high

among victims; i.e., workers who were informed about

dismissal upon the completion of the restructuring process.

Situational uncertainty was high among workers from the

undecided group; i.e., workers who had heard that the

decision was pending. Objective threat of unemployment

and situational uncertainty were lowest among survivors,

i.e., workers who were informed about continued

employment, also upon completion of the restructuring

process.

Our first hypothesis was that objective threat of unem-

ployment would associate with perceived job insecurity,

and, through perceived job insecurity with strain in the form

of higher emotional exhaustion and lower vigour. The

pattern of results supported this hypothesis: Felt job inse-

curity was higher among victims compared to survivors.

The implication is that objective threat of unemployment

indeed appeared as a core factor underlying perceptions of

job insecurity. Perceived job insecurity, in turn, associated

positively with strain. That is to say, perceived job inse-

curity wore out the worker’s resources. A tempting con-

clusion then is that perceived job insecurity carried the

association between objective threat of unemployment and

strain; a conclusion that was supported by the Sobel test

(Sobel 1982) and that aligns with studies that surveyed

victims when they had left the organization. These studies

demonstrated that being a victim of downsizing versus

being unemployed relates to poor psychological well-being

(Iversen and Sabroe 1988), depression, anxiety, and somatic

complaints (Devine et al. 2003; Hamilton et al. 1990). Our

study contributed to this evidence by focussing upon vic-

tims who were given due notice and by accounting for

perceived job insecurity as a mediator.

However, the conclusion of higher strain owing to

objective threat of unemployment among victims covers

only part of our results: We also established a direct asso-

ciation between objective threat of unemployment and

strain, so that victims reported less strain than survivors.

Similar results have been reported in studies that compared

victims and survivors upon the completion of organiza-

tional change, and not as in this study during organizational

change: Victims compared with survivors have a lower risk

on health problems (Kivimaki et al. 1998), and they expe-

rience less stress (Dekker and Schaufeli 1995; Devine et al.

2003). This seems to suggest that the relationship between

objective threat of unemployment and strain is carried also

by processes not related to perceived job insecurity. An

obvious set of processes in this respect concern coping

mechanisms. For example, victims may engage in job

search behaviour as a means to cope with the prospect

of becoming unemployed, or they may call upon

employability as the new mechanism to secure their labour

market position. Accordingly, an important route for future

research is to account for other factors than perceived job

insecurity, particularly when the aim is to understand strain

developing from restructurings.

Our second hypothesis concerned situational uncer-

tainty, as experienced by workers in the undecided group.

We argued that perceived job insecurity would mediate the

relationship between situational uncertainty and strain.

Conditional for mediation was that situational uncertainty

would relate positively to perceived job insecurity; a con-

dition that was not met, and hence, no support was found

for hypothesis 2. Instead, we found a non-significant

association between situational uncertainty and strain.

Even though the interpretation of non-significant results

is always tentative, we see two explanations for the

absence of a significant relationship between situational

uncertainty and perceived job insecurity. First, perhaps the

most straightforward explanation is that job insecurity and

uncertainty are distinct concepts. This is echoed in US job

insecurity research that has, unlike European job insecu-

rity research, developed fairly independently from job

uncertainty research (see e.g., Bordia et al. 2004a, b;

Paulsen et al. 2005): In the US tradition, job insecurity is

defined as the perceived threat of unemployment, and not

in terms of uncertainty. In Europe, perceived threat of

unemployment and uncertainty are both assumed core to

the experience of job insecurity. The reason for this dif-

ferent approach across continents is probably language-

related: Whereas insecurity and uncertainty are related

though distinct concepts in English, there are no words

available to tap the subtle differences between insecurity

and uncertainty in many other languages, among them

Dutch (Clinton 2008). The results of this study however,

suggests that respondents interpreted the job insecurity

items in terms of perceived threat of unemployment; thus,

in line with the US tradition. This explanation calls for

other studies specifically focussed upon the differences

between insecurity and uncertainty, both objective (i.e.,

situational insecurity versus uncertainty) and subjective

(i.e., perceived insecurity and uncertainty), and preferably

in contexts where such differences are also rooted in

language.

Second, another explanation could be that also the sur-

vivors were in a situation of high uncertainty: While their

jobs may be safe in the near future and for the time being,

they may see the present restructuring as the first in row, or

they may worry about how the restructuring will affect

their jobs; for example, in terms of job content or working

conditions. If so, this would imply few differences in

perceived job insecurity and associated strain between

workers from the undecided group and survivors. Another

implication is that our measure of situational uncertainty,

J Bus Psychol (2010) 25:75–85 81

123

basically a comparison of workers with and without a

decision, was not appropriate.

The absence of a relationship between situational

uncertainty and strain, or otherwise the absence of signif-

icant differences in strain between survivors and workers

from the undecided group may furthermore mean that also

survivors are likely to experience strain. Problems associ-

ated with surviving a downsizing are typically summarized

under the heading ‘survivor’s syndrome’; i.e., ‘a set of

attitudes, feelings and perceptions that occur in employees

who remain in organizational systems following involun-

tary employee reductions’ (Kets de Vries and Balazs 1997,

p. 27). The survivor’s syndrome includes feelings of anger,

betrayal, resentment, fear, depression, insecurity, and guilt

(Brockner 1988; Cascio 1993; Kets de Vries and Balazs

1997; Kiefer 2005; Thornhill et al. 1996). Furthermore, it

relates to unfavourable attitudes towards the job and the

organization, such as reduced organizational commitment,

low trust, decreased motivation, job dissatisfaction, and

burnout (Allen et al. 2001; Cameron 1994; Cascio 1993;

Davy et al. 1991; Kets de Vries and Balazs 1997; Kiefer

2005; O’Neill and Lenn 1995). Finally, surviving a

downsizing may relate to withdrawal behaviours; for

example, turnover intention, absenteeism (Armstrong-

Stassen 1994; Vahtera and Kivimaki 1997; Westerlund

et al. 2004), unproductive behaviours such as sabotage

(Kets de Vries and Balazs 1997), and poor performance

(Brockner 1988; Cascio 1993; Thornhill et al. 1996). Many

of these consequences are indicators of strain.

Limitations

Three limitations should be mentioned. First, the sample

size in this study was quite small, but comparable to those of

other downsizing and restructuring studies. This possibly

relates to the difficulty in gaining access to organizations in

restructurings. The small sample size was a drawback in

two distinct ways: The first drawback was that we were

unable to probe possible explanations for our findings; for

example explanations in terms of additional mediators. We

therefore launched a call for future studies about, for

example, factors that could explain the negative relation-

ship between objective threat of unemployment and strain.

A second drawback related to the small sample size was that

we did not test the structural models with all latent variables

and their observed indicators. Note, however, that we took

some precautions: We showed that the hypothesized three-

factor measurement model including job insecurity, emo-

tional exhaustion and vigour provided a satisfactory fit, and

we accounted for random measurement error.

Second, our data were cross-sectional, which obviously

limits possibilities to draw causal conclusions. For example,

our arguments seemed to hint at a causal relationship from

perceived job insecurity to strain. However, reversed cau-

sation may occur when strain makes workers more sus-

ceptible to feelings of job insecurity. Note, however, that

our arguments were in line with earlier longitudinal evi-

dence that showed that perceived job insecurity causes

strain rather than vice versa (Dekker and Schaufeli 1995;

Hellgren et al. 1999; Nelson et al. 1995). Nevertheless, we

acknowledge that a longitudinal design would provide

stronger evidence, and that it may help to understand the

workers’ responses in yet another way: With follow-up

data, we would be able to inspect whether the response

pattern of workers from the undecided group changed upon

notification. Also, a follow-up design would allow to

investigate the role of job search behaviour or employability

that could be critical in explaining the responses of victims.

Third, our data were based on self-reports which may

present risks associated with common method variance.

However, we demonstrated through Confirmatory Factor

Analysis that the hypothesised three-factor model fitted the

data better than the one-factor model, which argues against

common method variance. Furthermore, we included

objective employment status, namely objective threat of

unemployment and situational uncertainty, which may

further reduce the risk associated with common method

variance.

Conclusions and Implications

We demonstrated that objective threat of unemployment

following the announcement of restructuring was associated

with perceptions of job insecurity and, indirectly through

perceived job insecurity, with strain. At the same time,

however, objective threat of unemployment was associated

directly and negatively with strain. Possibly, workers who

were threatened with dismissal and subsequent unemploy-

ment found it easier to call in appropriate coping mecha-

nisms. This is an important observation from a theoretical

viewpoint: It shows that perceived job insecurity indeed

develops from the prospect of dismissal and unemployment.

It is important from the viewpoint of practitioners and

management specialists, too: Our results suggest that, even

though restructurings unavoidably imply costs for the

workers, informing workers about dismissal may trigger

effective coping mechanisms in the form of, for example,

job search behaviour or increased reliance on employabil-

ity. Such coping mechanisms can be supported by the

organization through the provision of outplacement pro-

grammes or by stimulating the workers’ employability.

The results concerning situational uncertainty as a sec-

ond critical factor in relation to perceived job insecurity

and strain were somewhat less straightforward. We

assumed that workers from the undecided group would be

in a highly uncertain situation that may trigger feelings of

82 J Bus Psychol (2010) 25:75–85

123

job insecurity and associated strain. However, we did not

establish a significant relationship between situational

uncertainty and perceived job insecurity or strain. One

explanation could be that situational uncertainty is not a

key factor to felt job insecurity, but should instead be

considered as clearly distinct from job insecurity. This first

explanation presents a challenge to the debate on the

meaning of job insecurity; a debate that has led to the

distinction between job insecurity and job uncertainty in

the US literature but not yet in European literature. Another

explanation could be that also survivors have reasons to

feel uncertain or to experience strain; reasons that have

been demonstrated in the context of the survivor’s syn-

drome (Kets de Vries and Balazs 1997). If valid, this

explanation has crucial implications for practitioners; those

managing change as well as occupational health specialists.

It suggests that it is not sufficient to inform workers that

their jobs are safe, unlike the jobs of colleagues. It instead

could mean that one should coach all workers, but perhaps

in different ways. Workers with safe jobs may need help in

regaining trust in management and in the future of the

organization, in general. Communication and fair and

quick decisions about dismissals may be most helpful to

workers for whom the decision about job loss is pending.

Acknowledgments We would like to thank Prof. Dr. James Die-

fendorff for his valuable comments on earlier versions of this paper.

Appendix: Items

Perceived job insecurity

1. I feel insecure about the future of my job.

2. I am sure I can keep my job.

3. Chances are, I will soon loose my job.

4. I worry about losing my job.

Emotional exhaustion

1. I feel emotionally drained by my job.

2. I feel used up at the end of a working day.

3. I feel tired when I get up in the morning and I have to

face another day at work.

4. Working all day long is really a strain for me.

5. I feel burned out from my job.

Vigour

1. At work, I feel bursting with energy.

2. In my job, I feel strong and vigorous.

3. When I get up in the morning, I feel like going to

work.

4. I can continue working for very long periods at a time.

5. At my job, I am very resilient, mentally.

References

Allen, T., Freeman, D., Russell, J., Reizenstein, R., & Rentz, J.

(2001). Survivor reactions to organizational downsizing: Does

time ease the pain? Journal of Occupational and OrganizationalPsychology, 74, 145–164.

Anderson, J. C., & Grebing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation

modelling in practice: A review and recommended two-step

approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411–423.

Arbuckle, J. L. (2003). AMOS 5.0 user’s guide. Chicago: SmallWa-

ters Corporation.

Armstrong-Stassen, M. (1994). Coping with transition: A study of

layoff survivors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15(7),

597–621.

Armstrong-Stassen, M. (2002). Designated redundant but escaping

lay-off: A special group of lay-off survivors. Journal ofOccupational and Organizational Psychology, 75(1), 1–13.

Ashford, S. J., Lee, C., & Bobko, P. (1989). Content, causes and

consequences of job insecurity: A theory-based measure and

substantive test. Academy of Management Journal, 32,

803–829.

Berntson, E., Bernhard-Oettel, C., & De Cuyper, N. (2007). Themoderating role of employability in the relationship betweenorganizational changes and job insecurity. Paper presented at the

13th European Congress of Work and Organizational Psychology,

May 9–12, Stockholm.

Bollen, K. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New

York: Wiley.

Bordia, P., Hobman, E., Jones, E., Gallois, C., & Callan, V. (2004a).

Uncertainty during organizational change: Types, consequences,

and management strategies. Journal of Business and Psychology,18(4), 507–532.

Bordia, P., Hunt, L., Paulsen, N., Tourish, D., & DiFonzo, N. (2004b).

Communication and uncertainty during organizational change. Is

it all about control? European Journal of Work & OrganizationalPsychology, 13(3), 345–365.

Brockner, J. (1988). The effect of work layoffs on survivors: Research,

theory and practice. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.),

Research in organizational behaviour, Vol. 10. Greenwich, CT:

JAI Press.

Bussing, A. (1999). Can control at work and social support moderate

psychological consequences of job insecurity? Results from a

quasi-experimental study in the steel industry. European Journalof Work and Organizational Psychology, 8(2), 219–242.

Cameron, K. (1994). Strategies for successful organizational down-

sizing. Human Resource Management, 33(2), 189–211.

Cascio, W. (1993). Downsizing: What do we know? What have we

learned? Academy of Management Executive, 7(1), 95–104.

Cheng, G. H.-L., & Chan, D. K.-S. (2008). Who suffers more from

job insecurity? A meta-analytic review. Applied Psychology,57(2), 272–303.

Clinton, M. (2008). Exploring the concept of employee uncertainty:

Two studies in UK organisations. Thesis Submitted for Degree

of Doctor in Philosophy in Management Studies. London: King’s

College London.

Davy, J., Kinicki, A., & Scheck, C. (1991). Developing and testing a

model of survivor responses to layoffs. Journal of VocationalBehavior, 38, 302–317.

De Cuyper, N., & De Witte, H. (2005). Job insecurity: Mediator or

moderator of the relationship between contract type and well-

being. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 31(4), 79–86.

De Witte, H. (1999). Job insecurity and psychological well-being:

Review of the literature and exploration of some unresolved issues.

European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8(2),

155–177.

J Bus Psychol (2010) 25:75–85 83

123

De Witte, H. (2000). Arbeidsethos en jobonzekerheid: Meting en

gevolgen voor welzijn, tevredenheid en inzet op het werk [Work

ethic and job insecurity: Assessment and consequences for well-

being, satisfaction and performance at work]. In R. Bouwen, K.

De Witte, H. De Witte, & T. Taillieu (Eds.), Van groep naargemeenschap [From group to community]. Liber AmicorumProf. Dr. Leo Lagrou (pp. 325–350). Leuven: Garant.

De Witte, H. (2005). Job insecurity: Review of the international

literature on definitions, prevalence, antecedents and conse-

quences. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 31(4), 1–6.

Dekker, S., & Schaufeli, W. (1995). The effects of job insecurity on

psychological health and withdrawal: A longitudinal study.

Australian Psychologist, 30(1), 57–63.

Devine, K., Reay, T., Stainton, L., & Collins-Nakai, R. (2003).

Downsizing outcomes: Better a victim than a survivor? HumanResource Management, 42(2), 109–124.

Ferrie, J., Shipley, M., Marmot, M., Stansfeld, S., & Smith, D.

(1998a). An uncertain future: The health effects of threats to

employment security in white-collar men and women. AmericanJournal of Public Health, 88(7), 1030–1036.

Ferrie, J., Shipley, M., Marmot, M., Stansfeld, S., & Smith, D.

(1998b). The health effects of major organisational change and

job insecurity. Social Science and Medicine, 46(2), 243–254.

Folkman, S., Schaefer, C., & Lazarus, R. S. (1979). Cognitive

processes as mediators of stress and coping. In V. Hamilton & D.

M. Warburton (Eds.), Human stress and cognition: An informa-tion-processing approach. London: Wiley.

Furda, J., & Meijman, T. (1992). Druk en dreiging, sturing of stress

[Stress, threat and strain]. In J. Winnubst & M. Schabrack (Eds.),

Handboek Arbeid en Gezondheid Psychologie. Hoofdthema’s[Occupational Health Psychology. Main topics] (pp. 127–144).

Utrecht, The Netherlands: Uitgeverij Lemma.

Gonzalez-Roma, V., Schaufeli, W., Bakker, A., & Lloret, S. (2006).

Burnout and engagement: Independent factors or opposite

poles?. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68, 165–174.

Greenglass, E., & Burke, R. (2000). The relationship between hospital

restructuring, anger, hostility and psychosomatics in nurses.

Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 10, 155–161.

Greenhalgh, L., & Rosenblatt, Z. (1984). Job insecurity: Toward

conceptual clarity. Academy of Management Review, 9(3), 438–448.

Hamilton, V., Broman, C., Hoffman, W., & Renner, D. (1990). Hard

times and vulnerable people: Initial effects of plant closing on

autoworkers’ mental health. Journal of Health and SocialBehavior, 30(2), 123–140.

Heaney, C., Israel, B., & House, J. (1994). Chronic job insecurity

among automobile workers: Effects on job satisfaction and

health. Social Science and Medicine, 38(10), 1431–1437.

Hellgren, J., Sverke, M., & Isaksson, K. (1999). A two-dimensional

approach to job insecurity: Consequences for employee attitudes

and well-being. European Journal of Work and OrganizationalPsychology, 8(2), 179–195.

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in

covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new

alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55.

Iversen, L., & Sabroe, S. (1988). Psychological well-being among

unemployed and employed people after a company closedown:

A longitudinal study. Journal of Social Issues, 44(4), 141–152.

Jahoda, M. (1982). Employment and unemployment: A social-psycho-logical analysis. Cambridge, UK: Cambrigde University Press.

Katz, D., & Kahn, R. (1978). The social psychology of organizations(2nd edition ed.). New York: John Wiley.

Kets de Vries, M., & Balazs, K. (1997). The downside of downsizing.

Human Relations, 50(1), 11–50.

Kiefer, T. (2005). Feeling bad: Antecedents and consequences of

negative emotions in ongoing change. Journal of OrganizationalBehavior, 26, 875–897.

Kivimaki, M., Vahtera, J., Elovainio, M., Pentti, J., & Virtanen, M.

(1998). Human costs of organizational downsizing: Comparing

health trends between leavers and stayers. American Journal ofCommunity Psychology, 32(1/2), 57–67.

Kivimaki, M., Vahtera, J., Pentti, J., Thomson, L., Griffiths, A., &

Cox, T. (2001). Downsizing, changes in work, and self-rated

health of employees: A 7-year 3-wave panel study. Anxiety,Stress and Coping, 14, 59–73.

Landsbergis, P. (1988). Occupational stress among health care

workers: A test of the job demands—control model. Journal ofOrganizational Psychology, 9(3), 217–239.

Layton, C. (1987). Levels of state anxiety for males facing

redundancy and subsequently reporting to be employed or

unemployed. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 65, 53–54.

Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal and coping.

New York: Springer Publishing Company.

Nelson, A., Cooper, C., & Jackson, P. (1995). Uncertainty amidst

change: The impact of privatization on employee job satisfaction

and well-being. Journal of Occupational and OrganizationalPsychology, 68, 57–71.

O’Neill, H., & Lenn, D. (1995). Voices of survivors: Words that

downsizing CEO’s should hear. Academy of ManagementExecutive, 9(4), 23–33.

Paulsen, N., Callan, V. J., Grice, T. A., Rooney, D., Gallois, C., Jones,

E., et al. (2005). Job uncertainty and personal control during

downsizing: A comparison of survivors and victims. HumanRelations, 58(4), 463–496.

Peterson, C., Maier, S. F., & Seligman, M. E. P. (1993). Learnedhelplessness: A theory for the age of personal control. New

York: Oxford University Press.

Petterson, I., Hertting, A., Hagberg, L., & Theorell, T. (2005). Are

trends in work and health conditions interrelated? A study of

Swedish hospital employees in the 1990s. Journal of Occupa-tional Health Psychology, 10(2), 110–120.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P.

(2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A

critical review of the literature and recommended remedies.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903.

Roskies, E., & Louis-Guerin, C. (1990). Job insecurity in managers:

Antecedents and consequences. Journal of OrganizationalBehavior, 11, 345–359.

Schaufeli, W., & Bakker, A. (2001). Werk en welbevinden: Naar

een positieve benadering in de Arbeids- en Gezondheidspsy-

chologie [Work and well-being: Towards a positive approach in

work and organizational psychology]. Gedrag & Organisatie,14, 229–253.

Schaufeli, W., & Bakker, A. (2004). Bevlogenheid: Een begrip

gemeten [Engagement: Measurement]. Gedrag & Organisatie,17, 89–112.

Schaufeli, W., & Van Dierendonck, D. (1994). Burnout, een begrip

gemeten: De Nederlandse versie van de Maslach Burnout

Inventory (MBI-NL) [Burnout: The Dutch version of the

Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI-NL)]. Gedrag & Gezondheid,22, 153–172.

Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic intervals for indirect effects in

structural equation models. In S. Leinhart (Ed.), SociologicalMethodology, 7, 422–445.

Sverke, M., Hellgren, J., & Naswall, K. (2002). No security: A meta-

analysis and review of job insecurity and its consequences.

Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 7(3), 242–264.

Tang, T., & Crofford, A. (1999). The anticipation of plant closing:

Employee reactions. Journal of Social Psychology, 139(1), 44–48.

Thornhill, A., Saunders, M., & Stead, J. (1996). Downsizing,

delayering–but where’s the commitment? The development of

a diagnostic tool to help manage survivors. Personnel Review,26(1/2), 81–98.

84 J Bus Psychol (2010) 25:75–85

123

Vahtera, J., & Kivimaki, M. (1997). Effect of organisational down-

sizing on health of employees. Lancet, 350(9085), 1124–1128.

Van Vuuren, T., Klandermans, B., Jacobson, D., & Hartley, J. (1991).

Employees’ reactions to job insecurity. In J. Hartley, D. Jacobson,

B. Klandermans, & T. van Vuuren (Eds.), Job insecurity: copingwith jobs at risk (pp. 65–78). London: Sage.

Warr, P. (1987). Work. unemployment and mental health. Oxford,

UK: Clarendon Press.

Westerlund, A., Ferrie, J., Hagberg, J., Jeding, K., Oxenstierna, G., &

Theorell, T. (2004). Workplace expansion, long-term sickness

absence, and hospital admission. The Lancet, 363, 1193–1197.

J Bus Psychol (2010) 25:75–85 85

123