Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 2009 47(2)320

Tit for tat?: Predictors of temporary agency workers’commitments

Robert W.D. Veitch and Helena D. Cooper-ThomasDepartment of Psychology, University of Auckland, Auckland, NZ

The temporary workforce is a small but increasing proportion of the labormarket in most industrialized countries. It has been argued that the competitiveadvantage of temporary work agencies will be increasingly determined by theircapacity to retain a committed workforce of temporary agency workers. Hence, weinvestigated temporary agency workers’ commitment to their client organizationand also their temporary work agency. Normative and affective commitments werepredicted by perceived organizational support (POS) in the case of both entities,supporting the idea that these types of commitment are governed by a socialexchange relationship. Continuance commitment was not associated with POS orplacement-related variables. Unexpectedly, agency temps’ commitments did notdiffer across the two entities. The results suggest that client organizations andtemporary work agencies can each strive to achieve greater affective and normativecommitments from agency temps, through POS-related activities, withoutcompromising agency temps’ commitments to the other entity.

Keywords: contingent workers, dual commitments, organizational commitment, perceived organizational

support, temporary workers, temps

Correspondence to: Dr Helena D. Cooper-Thomas, Department of Psychology, Universityof Auckland, Private Bag 92019, Auckland, New Zealand; fax +649 373 7450; e-mail:h.cooper-thomas@auckland.ac.nz

Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources. Published by SAGE Publications (Los Angeles, London, New Delhi,Singapore and Washington DC; www.sagepublications.com) on behalf of the Australian Human ResourcesInstitute. Copyright © 2009 Australian Human Resources Institute. Volume 47(3): 320–339. [1038-4111]DOI: 10.1177/1038411109106861.

The growth of the temporary work industry is arguably one of the most influ-ential employment trends of the last two decades (Connelly and Gallagher 2006;Walsh and Deery 2006). At the beginning of 2005, temporary agency workers(hereafter referred to as ‘agency temps’; also referred to in the literature as‘contract workers’, ‘labour hire workers’, or ‘temporary help-service workers’)constituted 1.5 percent of total employment in the United States, comprising anestimated 2 million workers (Bureau of Labor Statistics 2005). In 2004,temporary agency work accounted for between 1 and 2 percent of total employ-ment in most of the European Union countries, or around 3 million full-time

05-106861-Veitch:Layout 1 7/9/2009 5:58 PM Page 320

Temporary agency workers’ commitments 321

equivalent employees (Arrowsmith 2006). The proportion is slightly larger inAustralia, where agency temps accounted for approximately 2.9 percent of theworkforce in 2002 (Laplagne, Glover, and Fry 2005). While currently only asmall proportion of the workforce, the use of agency temps is expected tocontinue to increase (Connell and Burgess 2002; Handy and Davy 2007).

Mowday (1998) argues that because businesses face increasing competitivechallenges, a strategy of developing committed employees holds the promise ofsuperior financial returns. A meta-analysis by Meyer et al. (2002) confirms thetheoretical and practical value of organizational commitment, being relatednegatively to turnover and positively to attendance, in-role performance, jobsatisfaction, job involvement, and organizational citizenship behaviors (see alsoWright and Kehoe 2008). Thus, commitment is a desirable attribute of agencytemps, both for client organizations and for temporary work agencies (VanBreugel, Van Olffen, and Olie 2005).

Given the benefits of agency temps having high commitment, and theincreasing numbers of temporary workers, the question is how can organizationsdevelop andmaintain commitment? Although a considerable amount of researchhas examined the organizational commitment of permanent employees, littleempirical work has investigated the commitment of agency temps (Connelly,Gallagher, andGilley 2007; Gallagher andMcLean Parks 2001; Liden et al. 2003;Van Breugel, VanOlffen, andOlie 2005). At any particular time, an agency temphas two different foci for organizational commitment: the temporary workagency and the client organization (Connelly andGallagher 2004; Gallagher andMcLean Parks 2001). Theoretically, it is important for both of these entities tohave agency temps who are committed to them, to gain the maximum benefitfrom the contingent work arrangement. However, to date that has been nocomprehensive investigation of Meyer and Allen’s (1991) affective, normative,and continuance commitments simultaneously across both entities. Affectivecommitment refers to individuals’ emotional attachment to, identification with,and involvement in their organization, where as continuance commitmentdescribes individuals’ awareness of the costs associated with leaving their organ-ization, and normative commitment is the feeling of obligation to continueemployment with the organization.We address this notable gap in this research.

Temporary employment is assumed to have negative consequences for agencytemps’ organizational commitment to the client organization due to 1) theirexclusion from the corporate family (Reilly 1998; Sverke, Gallagher, andHellgren 2000) and 2) the asymmetrical social exchange of agency temps’employment situation resulting in a reduction of their commitment to theirclient organization as a means to restore balance (DeWitte and Naswall 2003).

Commitment research in agency temps

05-106861-Veitch:Layout 1 7/9/2009 5:58 PM Page 321

322 Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 2009 47(3)

Despite the theoretical rationale for lower commitment among agency temps,the majority of investigations of affective commitment have failed to finda significant difference between permanent workers and agency temps(De Witte and Naswall 2003; Feather and Rauter 2004; Pearce 1993; Porter1995, cited in Van Dyne and Ang 1998; Tansky, Gallagher, and Wetzel 1995,cited in Van Dyne and Ang 1998). Studies that have found differences havefound both lower levels of affective commitment of agency temps to their clientorganization than permanent workers (Sverke, Gallagher, and Hellgren 2000;Van Dyne and Ang 1998) and higher levels (McDonald and Makin 2000). Thismay be because a set level of affective commitment develops quickly afterstarting a job regardless of its permanency (Kondratuk et al. 2004; Meyer,Bobocel, and Allen 1991), or because there are positive elements to temporarywork situations, such as flexibility, which outweigh any negative factors(Gannon 1984; Thornthwaite 2004). Comparisons of agency temps’ organiza-tional commitments to their client organization and their temporary workagency have shown dual rather than competing commitments to these entities(Benson 1998; Connelly, Gallagher, and Gilley 2007; Liden et al. 2003; McClurg1999). This result fits with other evidence that individuals form commitmentsto multiple entities (e.g. Bishop et al. 2005; Connelly, Gallagher, and Gilley 2007;Coyle-Shapiro and Morrow 2006; Redman and Snape 2005).

If agency temps have similar levels of affective commitment to permanentworkers, it seems plausible that the antecedents of commitment, at leastcommitment to the client organization, are the same for both types of worker.Perceived organizational support (POS) represents one’s global beliefs aboutthe extent to which an organization values one’s contributions and cares aboutone’s well-being (Eisenberger et al. 1986). Based on the work of Blau (1964),Eisenberger et al. proposed that POS operates within a social exchangeframework where employees are motivated to maintain social equilibrium intheir employment relationship, so they reciprocate POS by repaying theirorganization with affective commitment (DeWitte and Naswall 2003). In linewith Eisenberger et al.’s contention, POS is one of the strongest and mostconsistent predictors of affective commitment in permanent workers (e.g.Eisenberger et al. 1986; Eisenberger et al. 2001; Gakovic and Tetrick 2003;Meyer et al. 2002; Shore andWayne 1993; Wayne, Shore, and Liden 1997). Inthe small amount of research that has investigated POS and affective commit-ment for agency temps, moderate-to-strong positively relations have beenfound with POS both from the client organization and from the temporarywork agency, and also with continuance commitment to the client organiza-tion and the temporary work agency (Connelly, Gallagher, and Gilley 2007;Liden et al., 2003; McClurg 1999; Van Breugel, Van Olffen, and Olie 2005).

Commitment as part of an exchange

05-106861-Veitch:Layout 1 7/9/2009 5:58 PM Page 322

Temporary agency workers’ commitments 323

Furthermore, one study has shown cross-over effects, with POS from oneentity affecting commitments to the other (Connelly, Gallagher, and Gilley2007).

In spite of these similar results for POS, some authors have suggested theantecedents of commitment differ, and have theorized that agency temps tendto focus on the economic, transactional elements of their employment situation(Connelly and Gallagher 2004; Gallagher and McLean Parks 2001; RousseauandWade-Benzoni 1995). In this case, placement-related variables representingthis transaction, such as duration of registration and number of placementsfacilitated by the agency, should predict agency temps’ commitments, such thatagency temps would be more committed to agencies that provide more andlonger placements. Yet there is a lack of empirical evidence for this.

Only two prior studies have statistically evaluated the differences betweenagency temps’ levels of commitment to their client organization and temporarywork agency. Benson (1998) found agency temps’ reported higher affectivecommitment to their client organization than their temporary work agency,which he suggested was because 1) agency temps lacked regular interaction withtheir temporary work agency, and 2) affective commitment in agency temps wasdetermined more by work experiences and less by their legal employmentsituation. Van Breugel, VanOlffen, andOlie (2005) found that affective commit-ment to temporary work agencies was at a moderate level, and continuancecommitment was slightly, although significantly, lower. They suggested that suchresults provide evidence that short-term assignments increase the significance ofthe temporary work agency to the worker, and hence influence affective commit-ment. However, such short-term assignments, and hence high affective commit-ment, may have been specific to this setting, since Dutch law prohibits agencytemps from remaining with a client organization for longer than three months(Van Breugel, Van Olffen, and Olie 2005).

There remain notable gaps in our knowledge of agency temps’ commitmentsto their temporary work agency and their client organizations, in particularcomparing all three levels of commitments relative to each other and betweenentities. Further, initial research has shown that POS predicts some types ofcommitment for agency temps both within entities (Connelly, Gallagher, andGilley 2007; Liden et al., 2003; McClurg 1999; Van Breugel, Van Olffen, andOlie 2005), and across entities. Yet, if agency temps do have more transactionalrelationships with both their temporary work agency and client organization(Rousseau andWade-Benzoni 1995), commitments should also be predicted byrelevant placement-related variables (Benson 1998; McClurg 1999). Since therelationship of placement-related variables with commitments has not beeninvestigated previously, we pose broad research questions to frame these

The current investigation

05-106861-Veitch:Layout 1 7/9/2009 5:58 PM Page 323

inquiries rather than specific hypotheses. In contrast, since there has beensome research on the relationships between POS and commitments, andcommitments within and across entities, for these we pose specific hypotheses.

Hypothesis 1: POS from the client organization will be positively related toa) affective commitment, b) continuance commitment, and c) normativecommitment.

Hypothesis 2: POS from the temporary work agency will be positivelyrelated to a) affective commitment, b) continuance commitment, andc) normative commitment.

Research question 1:What cross-over relationships are there betweenPOS from one entity and commitments to the other entity?

Research question 2:What is the relationship between the durationof agency temps’ current placement with their client organizationand their a) affective commitment, b) continuance commitment, andc) normative commitment to that entity?

Research question 3:What is the relationship between temporary workagency placement-related variables of duration of registration, numberof placements facilitated, and number of other temporary work agencyregistrations held with a) affective commitment, b) continuancecommitment, and c) normative commitment to that entity?

Research on permanent workers has shown that the various elements of theemployment situation (e.g. on-the-job experiences and security of employment)are differentially related to each commitment type (Meyer and Allen 1991;Meyer et al. 2002). As the elements that comprise the employment situation ofan agency temp are shared between the client organization (e.g. on-the-jobexperiences) and the temporary work agency (e.g. security of employment), andsince these are antecedents to different types of commitment, one would expectto observe different patterns of commitment to each entity. Previous researchhas found some evidence to suggest that agency temps have higher levels ofcommitment to their client organization than their temporary work agency(Benson 1998; Liden et al. 2003; McClurg 1999).

Looking in detail at the three commitment types, work experiences such asorganizational rewards, procedural justice, and POS, which are more likely tobe provided by the client organization, have demonstrated strong associationswith affective commitment (Allen and Meyer 1996; Meyer et al. 2002; Meyerand Herscovitch 2001). The internalization of norms via socialization and/orthe receipt of valued benefits (e.g. recognition) are associated with normativecommitment (Allen andMeyer 1996; Meyer et al. 2002; Meyer and Herscovitch

324 Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 2009 47(3)

05-106861-Veitch:Layout 1 7/9/2009 5:58 PM Page 324

Temporary agency workers’ commitments 325

2001), and again these are more likely to be provided by the client organization(McDonald andMakin 2000) (although we note that wages are ambiguous here,since they are provided indirectly by the client organization, and directly by thetemporary work agency). Personal investments in an organization of time andeffort, and perceived employment alternatives, are associated with continuancecommitment (Allen andMeyer 1996; Meyer et al. 2002; Meyer and Herscovitch2001). In this context, the ongoing role of the agency in supplying work to theagency temp will be more conducive to fostering continuance commitment thanthe client organization (Gallagher and McLean Parks 2001). Thus:

Hypothesis 3: Agency temps will report higher a) affective commitmentand b) normative commitment to their client organization than theirtemporary work agency, and c) higher continuance commitment to theirtemporary work agency.

Given the flexibility that agency temps have to work both for different clientorganizations and different temporary work agencies, it is likely that continu-ance commitment is the least prevalent commitment type. It is less clearwhether affective or normative commitment will predominate in attachmentsto either entity: choosing a more flexible work option may indicate that agencytemps are reluctant to become emotionally attached (lower affective commit-ment), yet, on the other hand, given the flexibility and more transient nature oftheir relationships with organizations, agency temps may feel less obliged (lowernormative commitment).

Hypothesis 4: Agency temps will report greater levels affective andnormative commitments than continuance commitment in respectof both their a) client organization and b) temporary work agency.

Method

Sample and procedure

Participants were agency temps at Agency X, a large human resourcesoutsourcing firm based in Auckland. For this research, surveys were sent to alltemps on the clerical payroll of Agency X for one week. At the time the firstsurvey was distributed, 496 temps were on the payroll. Three weeks later, areminder was sent out to the 449 individuals on the clerical payroll for thatweek. Since the payroll of Agency X varies each week, some temps receivedonly one of these two mailings. New Zealand’s Privacy Act (1993) preventsaccess to Agency X’s database, and hence we cannot calculate exact responserates. From the original survey mailing, 79 questionnaires were received, aresponse rate of 16%. Additionally, three individuals who received only the

05-106861-Veitch:Layout 1 7/9/2009 5:58 PM Page 325

reminder letter agreed to participate, increasing the overall sample to 82. Theresponse rates are 16% or 18% respectively across the two overlapping samples.While these are low, they fall at approximately one standard deviation from themean for organizational survey response rates (Baruch and Holtom 2008).Further, we note that agency temps are difficult to access because they tend notto exist in large numbers in single organizations (Biggs and Swailes 2006).Further, agency temps had to respond during their own time, which is likely tohave reduced the response rate.

Removal of incomplete responses and outliers left 73 respondents. Themean age of participants was 36 years (SD = 11). The sample consisted of60 females (82%) and 13 males (18%). By ethnicity, 47 of participants identifiedthemselves as New Zealand European/Pakeha; 8 Maori; 2 as Pacific; 2 asChinese; 1 as non-Chinese Asian; and 13% as Other. In terms of highest levelof education, 34% had a high school qualification; 33% had an undergraduatedegree or diploma; 23% had a postgraduate degree or diploma; and 10% had noqualification. Further socio-demographic information can be found in table 1.While the number of participants in the investigation is small, the sample hasa similar demographic distribution to past research conducted on agency tempsin New Zealand (Hardy and Walker 2003).

Measures

All data were gathered from the participants by self-report questionnaire. Theresponse scale for POS, affective, continuance, and normative commitmentswas 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). These four variables weremeasured with identical items for client organization and temporary workagency, other than reference to either ‘client organization’ or ‘temping agency[Agency X]’. Cronbach alphas are provided in table 1.

Perception of organizational support

In line with other researchers, we used a shortened version of Eisenberger et al.’s(1986) scale, using the ten highest loading (Eisenberger et al. 1997; Liden et al.2003; Lynch, Eisenberger, and Armeli 1999; Rhoades, Eisenberger, and Armeli2001). An example item is ‘Help is available frommy client organization when Ihave a problem’.

Organizational commitment

Affective, continuance, and normative commitment were measured with thethree Meyer, Allen, and Smith (1993) 6-item scales, which have been found to bevalid and reliable (e.g. Allen and Meyer 1996; Dunham, Grube, and Castenada1994; Hackett, Bycio, and Hausdorf 1994; Meyer, Allen, and Smith 1993).Example items for client organization commitments are: ‘My client organizationhas a great deal of personal meaning to me’ (affective commitment); ‘Right now,

326 Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 2009 47(3)

05-106861-Veitch:Layout 1 7/9/2009 5:58 PM Page 326

Temporary agency workers’ commitments 327

staying with my client organization is a matter of necessity as much as desire’(continuance commitment); and ‘I would feel guilty if I left my client organiza-tion now’ (normative commitment).

Placement-related information

A number of single-item questions were asked relating to the work situation ofthe agency temp. Temporary work agency-related questions included thelength of registration with the temporary work agency, the number of place-ments facilitated by the temporary work agency, and the number of othertemporary work agency registrations held; a single client organization-relatedquestion was the duration of the current placement.

Results

Table 1 shows the means, standard deviations, correlations, and Cronbach’salphas where appropriate, for all variables. The duration of the current clientorganization placement was 4 months, with a wide amount of variation.On average, agency temps had been with the temporary work agency for12 months, and had had 2 placements in that time (including their currentplacement), with most not belonging to at least one other temporary workagency (median = 0). Levels of POS from client organization and temporarywork agency were quite high and similar. All types of commitment to clientorganization and temporary work agency were moderate and similar.

Examining the predictor variables of commitment

A series of multiple regressions was computed to assess predictors of affective,continuance and normative commitments to the client organization andtemporary work agency respectively (see table 2). All correlationsmet the require-ments for a multiple regression; tolerance values were more than 0.10 indicatingan absence of multicollinearity in the regression equations; inspections of thenormal probability plots showed that assumptions of normality were met; andinspection the scatterplots of the standardized residuals confirmed that there wereno outliers. Although the sample size is small, it meets Harris’ (1985) criterionfor multiple regression, namely that with five or fewer predictors, the number ofparticipants should exceed the number of predictors by at least 50.

Looking first at commitments to the client organization, table 2 shows themultiple regressions for affective and normative commitments were significant,with only POS a significant positive predictor for each (β = 0.73, p < 0.001;β = 0.54, p < 0.001 respectively). The multiple regression for continuancecommitment was not significant. These results support hypothesis 1a and 1c butnot 1b, and show no relationships in answer to research question 2.

05-106861-Veitch:Layout 1 7/9/2009 5:58 PM Page 327

328 Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 2009 47(3)

Tab

le1

Variabledescriptives,correlations,and

internalreliabilities

(whereapplicable)

MS

D1

23

45

67

89

1011

1213

1A

ge(y

ears

)36

.12

11.1

4

2D

urat

ion

ofcu

rren

tC

O4.

117.

14.1

9

pla

cem

ent

(mon

ths)

3D

urat

ion

ofre

gist

ratio

n12

.01

31.4

9.3

6**

.47*

*

with

TWA

(mon

ths)

4N

umb

erof

pla

cem

ents

2.31

2.07

–.02

.07

.17

by

TWA

5N

umb

erof

othe

rTW

A0.

901.

21–.

12–.

12–.

17.0

7

regi

stra

tions

held

6P

OS

from

CO

4.61

1.23

–.10

–.00

.06

–.06

–.09

(.93)

7P

OS

from

TWA

4.77

1.18

.00

.02

.04

.14

–.01

.42*

*(.9

5)

8A

Cto

CO

3.81

1.48

.11

.16

.15

–.17

–.16

.72*

*.2

7*(.8

8)

9A

Cto

TWA

3.60

1.36

.13

.14

.18

–.00

–.04

.37*

*.7

3**

.45*

*(.8

9)

10C

Cto

CO

3.39

1.29

.07

.11

–.03

–.10

–.14

–.01

–.04

.25*

.19

(.81)

11C

Cto

TWA

3.24

1.33

.15

.06

–.08

.04

–.05

.11

.06

.16

.11

.60*

*(.7

6)

12N

Cto

CO

3.93

1.43

–.04

.18

.04

.06

–.11

.56*

*.2

8*.6

2**

.42*

*.3

0**

.28*

(.88)

13N

Cto

TWA

3.65

1.26

.10

.01

.02

.14

.20

.44*

*.6

2**

.44*

*.7

2**

.16

.28*

.62*

*(.8

5)

**p

<0.

01le

vel

*p

<0.

05(2

-tai

led

)N

ote:

Inte

rnal

cons

iste

ncy

relia

bili

ties

(alp

haco

effic

ient

s)ar

ere

por

ted

inp

aren

thes

esal

ong

the

dia

gona

l.C

O=

clie

ntor

gani

zatio

n;TW

A=

tem

por

ary

wor

kag

ency

;A

C=

affe

ctiv

eco

mm

itmen

t;C

C=

cont

inua

nce

com

mitm

ent;

NC

=no

rmat

ive

com

mitm

ent

05-106861-Veitch:Layout 1 7/9/2009 5:58 PM Page 328

Temporary agency workers’ commitments 329

Tab

le2

Multipleregressionanalyses

forpredictorsofaffective,continuanceandnorm

ativecommitments

Affe

ctiv

eco

mm

itmen

tC

ontin

uanc

eco

mm

itmen

tN

orm

ativ

eC

omm

itmen

t

Bβ

Bβ

Bβ

Clie

ntor

gani

zatio

n

Dur

atio

nof

curr

ent

CO

pla

cem

ent

.02

.11

.01

.06

.00

.00

PO

Sfr

omC

O.8

8.7

3***

–.01

–.01

.63

.54*

**

PO

Sfr

omTW

A–.

03–.

02–.

02–.

02.0

6.0

5

Con

stan

t–.

233.

48**

*.7

5

R.7

3.0

7.5

6

Ad

j.R

2.5

1–.

04.2

9

F†26

.27*

**0.

1210

.68*

**

Tem

por

ary

wor

kag

ency

Dur

atio

nof

regi

stra

tion

with

TWA

.01

.18*

–.01

–.11

.00

.01

Num

ber

ofTW

Ap

lace

men

ts–.

09–.

14.0

5.0

7.0

4.0

6

Num

ber

ofot

her

TWA

regi

stra

tions

held

.02

.01

–.07

–.07

.24

.23*

PO

Sfr

omTW

A.8

3.7

2***

.01

.01

.54

.51*

**

PO

Sfr

omC

O.0

5.0

5.1

2.1

1.2

6.2

5*

Con

stan

t–.

492.

98**

*.2

4

R.7

6.1

6.6

9

Ad

j.R

2.5

3–.

06.4

4

F‡15

.65*

**0.

3310

.94*

**

†d

f(3

,69

);‡

df

(5,

59);

*p

<0.

05;

**p

<0.

01;

***

p<

0.00

1.N

ote:

CO

=cl

ient

orga

niza

tion;

TWA

=te

mp

orar

yw

ork

agen

cy.

05-106861-Veitch:Layout 1 7/9/2009 5:58 PM Page 329

Looking at temps’ commitments to their temporary work agency, again theregressions for affective and normative commitments were significant, but thatfor continuance commitment was not. For affective commitment, both durationof registration with temporary work agency (β = 0.18, p < 0.05) and POS fromtemporary work agency (β = 0.72, p < 0.001) were significant positive predic-tors. For normative commitment, the number of other temporary work agencyregistrations held (β = 0.23, p < 0.05), POS from the client organization (β =0.24, p < 0.05), and POS from temporary work agency (β = 0.51, p < 0.001) weresignificant positive predictors. Again, the multiple regression for continuancecommitment was not significant. These results support hypothesis 2a and 2c butnot 2b, and answer research questions 1 and 3 respectively, with only one of sixpossible cross-over relationships significant, and two placement-related variableseach significant predictors for one type of commitment.

Examining differences between commitment types

Further analyses were conducted to investigate hypotheses 3 and 4. To controlfor the possibility of a type-I error, a within-participants 3 X 2 ANOVA (twoentities: Temporary work agency and Client organization; three commitmenttypes: Affective, Continuance, and Normative) was conducted. Mauchly’s testof sphericity indicated unequal variances (W(2) = 0.85, p < 0.01), so furtheranalyses used the conservative Greenhouse-Geisser calculations. A main effectwas observed for entity (F(1, 72) = 3.96, p = 0.05), suggesting that on averagethere was a significant difference in the corresponding levels of agency temps’affective, continuance, and normative commitments to client organization andtemporary work agency. After computing pooled mean square error and pooleddegrees of freedom error values, post-hoc Cochran’s (1950) Q-tests were used toanalyze the differences between the corresponding commitment types betweeneach entity (see table 3). This method of analysis was chosen for post-hoc testsas it is more conservative than other similar F-tests and t-tests (Giles 2002). Theanalysis revealed no significant differences between corresponding affective andcontinuance commitments within each entity. However, the difference betweennormative commitments was statistically significant (q(0.76, 138.99) = 4.07, p <0.05), with normative commitment to the client organization higher. Theseresults support hypothesis 3b, but not 3a or 3c.

Amain effect was also observed for commitment type (F (1.60, 115.03) = 5.64,p< 0.01). Again, post-hoc Cochran’s (1950) Q-tests were used (see table 4), showingonly one significant difference, with normative commitment to the client organi-zation higher than continuance commitment (q(1.74, 177.97) = 2.70, p< 0.05). Thisprovides partial support for hypothesis 4a, but not 4b.

No main interaction effect was observed between commitment type andentity (F(1.74, 125.00) = 0.24, p = 0.76) indicating that, on average, agency temps’patterns of commitments to the temporary work agency and client organizationwere similar.

330 Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 2009 47(3)

05-106861-Veitch:Layout 1 7/9/2009 5:58 PM Page 330

Temporary agency workers’ commitments 331

Table 3 Post hoc q-test comparisons of commitment types between entities

Q-statistic

Means being compared Client organization

Affective – Affective –2.75

Continuance – Continuance 1.34

Normative – Normative 4.07*

* p < 0.05Note: For all comparisons: the pooled mean square error = .76; pooled df error = 138.99.

Table 4 Post hoc q-test comparisons of commitment types within entities

Q-statistic

Means being compared Client organization Temporary work agency

Affective – Normative –0.79 –0.31

Affective – Continuance 2.70 2.33

Normative – Continuance 3.48* 2.65

* p < 0.05Note: For all comparisons: the pooled mean square error = 1.74; pooled df error = 177.97.

Discussion

This research extends previous findings relating to agency temps’ commitmentsto explore affective, continuance, and normative commitments to both theirtemporary work agency and their client organization; and the prediction of allthree commitments by a combination of variables not previously investigated.Overall, the findings show that POS, a relational antecedent of commitment,was a significant predictor of affective and normative commitments to bothtemporary work agency and client organization within entities (hypotheses 1and 2), with only one cross-over relationship (research question 1). Of theplacement-related, transactional antecedents investigated, none of those for theclient organization were significant, while for the temporary work agency rela-tionship, duration of registration with the temporary work agency was a weakpositive predictor of affective commitment and number of other temporarywork agency registrations was a weak positive predictor of normative commit-ment (research questions 2 and 3). Within and between entities analyses

05-106861-Veitch:Layout 1 7/9/2009 5:58 PM Page 331

indicated higher levels of normative commitments to the client organizationthan the temporary work agency (hypothesis 3) and higher levels of normativethan continuance commitment for client organization only (hypothesis 4).

Looking in more detail, this research was the first to investigate the predic-tors of continuance and normative commitments to the client organization andtemporary work agency simultaneously in agency temps, and the findingsare largely consistent with previous research with permanent workers(e.g. Gakovic and Tetrick 2003; Meyer et al. 2002). Our findings for the predic-tors of affective commitment are similar to previous research both with agencytemps (Benson, 1998; Connelly, Gallagher, and Gilley 2007; Liden et al. 2003;McClurg, 1999) and permanent workers (e.g. Eisenberger et al. 2001; Gakovicand Tetrick 2003; Meyer et al. 2002; Shore andWayne 1993; Wayne, Shore, andLiden 1997). These findings support Liden et al.’s (2003) contention thataffective commitment in agency temps operates within a social exchangeframework (Blau 1964), where POS is reciprocated by repaying both clientorganizations and temporary work agencies, and extends this also to normativecommitment.

The findings of a null relationship between POS and continuance commit-ment are consistent with research on permanent workers (e.g. Eisenberger,Fasolo, and Davis-LaMastro 1990; Gakovic and Tetrick 2003; Meyer et al. 2002;O’Driscoll and Randall 1999), although they contradict previous research withagency temps (Connelly, Gallagher, and Gilley 2007; Van Breugel, Van Olffen,and Olie 2005). These, combined with the null relationships for placement-related variables, suggest that agency temps in this sample did not feelconstrained to stay with either the temporary work agency or the client organ-ization by either relational or transactional variables. It is possible that environ-mental factors provided a perception of job mobility and can account for thisoutcome. Specifically, past research on permanent workers has shown thatperceptions of job mobility have a moderate negative relationship with contin-uance commitment (Meyer et al. 2002). At the time of survey New Zealand hadan unemployment rate of 3.7 percent, the lowest of all member countries of theOrganization for Economic Co-operation and Development (Pink 2005).Respondents had, on average, one other temporary work agency registration, andwith a large proportion having two others (see standard deviation in table 1).Hence, they could likely have taken up a placement facilitated by anothertemporary work agency.

We found weak evidence for a cross-over effect for POS, with POS fromthe client organization predicting normative commitment to the temporarywork agency. This result confirms that there can be cross-over benefits, yetthere seems to be no specific pattern to these in the research to date (seeConnelly, Gallagher, and Gilley 2007).

Continuance commitment to client organization showed weak positive rela-tionships with affective and normative commitments to client organization. Thisfinding is at odds with research on permanent workers which tends to show no

332 Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 2009 47(3)

05-106861-Veitch:Layout 1 7/9/2009 5:58 PM Page 332

relationship between continuance with affective and normative commitments(e.g. Gakovic and Tetrick 2003; Meyer et al. 2002). These results suggest that asignificant perceived cost for agency temps of leaving a client organization isemotional in nature. Indeed, this is consistent with the transient nature oftemporary work and could explain why a stronger relationship between POSand affective and normative commitments has been found in agency temps thanin permanent workers (Benson, 1998).

Two placement-related variables predicted commitments to thetemporary work agency. Duration of registration with temporary workagency predicted affective commitment to this entity; this finding is consis-tent with McClurg (1999), but contradicts Benson (1998). Given that affectivecommitment develops quickly (Kondratuk et al. 2004; Meyer, Bobocel, andAllen 1991), it is logical to assume that an agency temp who is highly affec-tively committed to their temporary work agency stays longer. The secondrelationship was of number of other temporary work agency registrationsheld by agency temps which predicted normative commitment to thetemporary work agency. One possible explanation is that agency temps expe-rience cognitive dissonance in that they could have found work elsewhere,and so justify this decision by feeling more obliged to the temporary workagency that facilitated their current placement (Festinger, 1957). Alternatively,it may be that career agency temps are those with more temporary workagency registrations, and overall they recognize reciprocal normative obliga-tions to sustain this career path. Further research is needed to explore thesepossible explanations.

The means for affective, continuance, and normative commitments to bothclient organization and temporary work agency were moderate. The levels ofaffective commitment to the client organization were lower than those foundin previous investigations, but levels of affective commitment to the temporarywork agency were similar (Benson 1998; Connelly, Gallagher, and Gilley 2007;Liden et al. 2003; McClurg 1999). It was predicted that agency temps wouldreport higher levels of affective commitment to their client organization thanto their temporary work agency, due to greater interpersonal contact, but differ-ences between these means were not significant. As noted above, the favorableemployment conditions during the period of data collection may have influ-enced agency temps, in this case causing them to lower their affective commit-ment to their client organization to balance a belief that in a favorable economicclimate they should be offered permanent work. Alternatively, affectivecommitment to the temporary work agency may have been increased due toAgency X’s proactive management of its relationship with its temps, throughactivities such as staff social evenings and monthly newsletters. These actionsmay serve to increase the affective and normative commitments of their agencytemps directly, and also indirectly via POS.

Overall, agency temps displayed unexpectedly similar patterns ofcommitment to the temporary work agency and the client organization.

Temporary agency workers’ commitments 333

05-106861-Veitch:Layout 1 7/9/2009 5:58 PM Page 333

There was only one instance of differences in commitment types within anentity, with higher levels of normative than continuance commitment to theclient organization.

Limitations

The use of self-report measures introduces the possibility of bias due tocommon method variance. However, self-report measures appear to be mostappropriate data collection method for introspectively experienced phenomenasuch as employees’ commitment and POS (Crampton and Wagner 1994;Schalm and Kelloway 2001). A second issue is that this sample was comprisedprimarily of women, in clerical positions, from a single temporary work agencyat a time when the favorable labor market for employees meant that otheroptions were likely available. This brings into question the applicability of thefindings to other agencies, economies, industries, and nations. Althoughresearch suggests that gender does not influence levels of commitment (Meyeret al. 2002), there is some evidence to suggest that job type may influence POS(Eisenberger et al. 1986), and scarcity of alternatives has been linked to levels ofcontinuance commitment (Meyer and Allen 1991; Meyer et al. 2002). Further,Agency X may differ from other agencies in respect of the type of temps itattracts, and how it develops and maintains relationships with them, as well inthe types of clerical jobs obtained. However, Agency X is one of the largesttemporary work agencies in New Zealand and therefore, this research onagency temps is likely to be reasonably representative of the experience ofagency temps more broadly. Third, the research was conducted using a singledata collection, so the causal direction of the relationships found in the researchcannot be inferred from the data. However, POS has been shown to predictaffective commitment using a longitudinal research design (e.g. Rhoades,Eisenberger, and Armeli 2001), so it is likely that this result extends to thecurrent situation and also other commitments. Last, the sample size, althoughsufficient for the analyses conducted, may not have picked up small effects, rela-tionships, or differences between the variables examined.

Directions for future research

This study contributes to a small body of research examining the commitmentsof agency temps. Indeed, it is the first to examine simultaneously the affective,continuance, and normative commitments of agency temps to their clientorganization and temporary work agency. Further research is needed toexplore the relationships found in this research using a larger and more variedsample. Future research would benefit from investigations of work experiencevariables such as role ambiguity, role conflict and job satisfaction, and othervariables that have been found to be related to continuance commitment, such

334 Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 2009 47(3)

05-106861-Veitch:Layout 1 7/9/2009 5:58 PM Page 334

Temporary agency workers’ commitments 335

as transferability of skills, satisfaction with employment inducements, and theavailability of alternatives including both type of temporary assignment as wellas temporary versus permanent work (Ellingson, Gruys, and Sackett 1998;Meyer et al. 2002), to see whether these variables have the same relationshipswith the commitment types in agency temps as have been found in permanentworkers. Further, research has yet to examine the outcomes of each commit-ment type in agency temps. Because it is much easier for agency temps to leavetheir jobs than permanent workers, their levels of affective, continuance, andnormative commitments may relate to outcomes in a different way topermanent workers.

Additionally, it has been suggested that temporary work may servedifferent purposes for different individuals (Connelly, Gallagher, and Gilley2007; McClurg 1999). While some may be using temporary work as a means ofassessing or attaining secure core positions (Polivka and Nardone 1989) or as atemporary measure in a weak employment market (Ellingson, Gruys, andSackett 1998), others may have chosen temporary work as a way to consciouslyavoid core employment (Gannon 1984), or to achieve flexibility (Thornthwaite2004). Different agency temp motivations are likely to have different implica-tions for commitments to both the client organization and the temporary workagency. Specifically, those seeking permanent employment may be morecommitted to the client organization in the hope of achieving a core positionwith the company, whereas those pursuing a temping career may be morecommitted to the temporary work agency as being more instrumental to theirfuture employment. These are exciting and useful avenues for future agencytemp research.

Practical implications

Perhaps the most important practical implication of this research is that POS inagency temps is important in determining both affective and normativecommitments to their temporary work agencies and client organizations. Thus,in addition to providing excellent placement opportunities, temporary workagencies should aim to provide support to their agency temps (POS), especiallyif the agency temp is on a long-term placement with a client organization.Similarly, client organizations using temps should try to make them feel aswelcome and included in their organization as soon as possible, as resultsindicate that a significant perceived cost of leaving a client organization is anemotional one. There may also be some incidental benefits, with POS from oneentity affecting attitudes also to the other entity.

The question then arises as to how temporary work agencies and clientorganizations can achieve higher POS in agency temps. The essence of POS isthat employees perceive that the organization values and supports them intheir work, and cares about their needs. A key period for employees is their

05-106861-Veitch:Layout 1 7/9/2009 5:58 PM Page 335

336 Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 2009 47(3)

initial socialization into the organization (Cooper-Thomas and Anderson 2005)and, given the frequent transitions that agency temps’ experience across organ-izations, we suggest that considering POS during socialization is helpful.Cooper-Thomas and Anderson propose learning occurs across four coredomains during socialization: social, role, interpersonal resources, and organ-ization. Taking these in the context of the client organization as an example,actions could include helping the agency temp form social links withcolleagues, such as by hosting a work group coffee morning (social domain),supporting negotiation of a role that suits the agency temp’s abilities and organ-ization needs (role domain), providing an experienced buddy (interpersonalresources domain), and including the agency temp in induction and trainingevents that enable him/her to better understand the organization (organiza-tion domain). Using processes such as these, including both formal andinformal socialization (Meyer et al. 2002), both temporary work agenciesand client organizations may be able to get better attendance, performance,and reduced early exit of agency temps.

Conclusions

This investigation examined agency temps’ affective, continuance, andnormative commitments to their temporary work agency and client organiza-tions, specifically looking at what variables predicted each type of commitment,and how the levels of commitment differed. The findings indicate that POSpredicts normative and affective commitments to both the temporary workagency and the client organization, providing support for the contention thatthese variables are governed by a social exchange relationship. Continuancecommitment was not related to any of the variables hypothesized.Commitments to both entities were moderate and broadly similar to the smallamount of past research on agency temps. Given the scarcity of research in thisarea, further research is needed on this important and growing sector of theworkforce, both to improve our theoretical understanding and to ameliorateoutcomes for all parties.

Robert Veitch (MSc) is a recent graduate of the University of Auckland and currently works as a research

analyst at JRA (NZ) Ltd. His areas of research interest are agency temps, the psychological contract, and

employee engagement.

Helena Cooper-Thomas (PhD) is a senior lecturer in the Department of Psychology at the University of

Auckland. She has 15 years’ experience working with organisations to improve the wellbeing and utilization

of their employees, both as an academic and a consultant, principally in the United Kingdom and New

Zealand. Her research interests include organisational commitment and engagement, new employee

adjustment, and person–organisation fit.

05-106861-Veitch:Layout 1 7/9/2009 5:58 PM Page 336

Temporary agency workers’ commitments 337

References

Allen, N.J., and J.P. Meyer. 1996. Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization:An examination of construct validity. Journal of Vocational Behavior 49: 252–76.

Arrowsmith, J. 2006. Temporary agency work in an enlarged European Union.www.eurofound.eu.int/publications/files/EF05139EN.pdf (accessed 29 March 2006).

Baruch, Y., and B.C. Holtom. 2008. Survey response rate levels and trends in organizational research.Human Relations 61(8): 1139–60.

Benson, J. 1998. Dual commitment: Contract workers in Australian manufacturing enterprises. Journal ofManagement Studies 35: 35575.

Biggs, D., and S. Swailes. 2006. Relations, commitment and satisfaction in agency workers and permanentworkers. Employee Relations 28: 130–43.

Bishop, J.W., K.D. Scott, M.G. Goldsby, and R. Cropanzano. 2005. A construct validity studyof commitment and perceived support variables. Group and Organization Management30: 153–80.

Blau, P.M. 1964. Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2005. Contingent and alternative employment arrangements, February 2005.

www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/conemp.pdf (accessed 29 March 2006).Cochran, W.G. 1950. The comparison of percentages in matched samples. Biometrika 37: 256–66.Connell, J., and J. Burgess. 2002. In search of flexibility: Implications for temporary agency workers and

human resource management. Australian Bulletin of Labour 28(4): 272–83.Connelly, C.A., and D.G. Gallagher. 2004. Emerging trends in contingent work research. Journal

of Management 30(6): 959–83.Connelly, C.A., and D.G. Gallagher. 2006. Independent and dependent contracting: Meaning and

implications. Human Resource Management Review 16: 95–106.Connelly, C.E., D.G. Gallagher, and K M. Gilley. 2007. Organizational and client commitment among

contracted employees: A replication and extension with temporary workers. Journal of VocationalBehavior 70(2): 326–35.

Cooper-Thomas, H.D., and N. Anderson. 2005. Organizational socialization: A field study intosocialization success and rate. International Journal of Selection and Assessment 13(2): 116–28.

Coyle-Shapiro, J.A-M., and P.C. Morrow. 2006. Organizational and client commitment among contractedemployees. Journal of Vocational Behavior 48: 416–31.

Crampton, S.M., and J.A. Wagner. 1994. Percept-percept inflation in microorganizational research: Aninvestigation of prevalence and effect. Journal of Applied Psychology 79: 67–76.

De Witte, H., and K. Naswall. 2003. Objective vs. subjective job insecurity: Consequences of temporarywork for job satisfaction and organizational commitment in four European countries. Economic andIndustrial Democracy 24(2): 149–88.

Dunham, R.B., J.A. Grube, and M.B. Castenada. 1994. Organizational commitment: The utility of anintegrative definition. Journal of Applied Psychology 79: 370–80.

Eisenberger, R., S. Armeli, B. Rexwinkel, P.D. Lynch, and L. Rhoades. 2001. Reciprocation of perceivedorganizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology 86: 42–51.

Eisenberger, R., J. Cummings, S. Armeli, and P. Lynch. 1997. Perceived organizational support,discretionary treatment, and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology 82: 812–20.

Eisenberger, R., P. Fasolo, and V. Davis-LaMastro. 1990. Perceived organizational support and employeediligence, commitment, and innovation. Journal of Applied Psychology 75: 51–9.

Eisenberger, R., R. Huntington, S. Hutchison, and D. Sowa. 1986. Perceived organizational support.Journal of Applied Psychology 71: 500–7.

Ellingson, J.E., M.L. Gruys, and P.R. Sackett. 1998. Factors related to the satisfaction and performance oftemporary employees. Journal of Applied Psychology 83: 913–21.

Feather, N., and K.A. Rauter. 2004. Organizational citizenship behaviours in relation to job status, jobinsecurity, organizational commitment and identification, job satisfaction and work values. Journal ofOccupational and Organizational Psychology, 77: 81–94.

Festinger, L. 1957. A theory of cognitive dissonance. Evanston, IL: Row Peterson.

05-106861-Veitch:Layout 1 7/9/2009 5:58 PM Page 337

338 Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 2009 47(3)

Gakovic, A., and L.E. Tetrick. 2003. Perceived organizational support and work status: A comparison ofthe employment relationships of part-time and full-time employees attending university classes.Journal of Organizational Behavior 24: 649–66.

Gallagher, D.G., and J. McLean Parks. 2001. I pledge thee my troth … contingently: Commitment and thecontingent work relationship. Human Resource Management Review 11: 181–208.

Gannon, M.J. 1984. Preferences of temporary workers: Time, variety, and flexibility.Monthly LaborReview 107(10): 26–8.

Hackett, R.D., P. Bycio, and P.A. Hausdorf. 1994. Further assessments of Meyer and Allen’s (1991) three-component model of organizational commitment. Journal of Applied Psychology 79: 15–23.

Handy, J., and D. Davy. 2007. Gendered ageism: Older women’s experiences of employment agencypractices. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 45(1): 85–99.

Hardy, D.J., and R.J. Walker. 2003. Temporary but seeking permanence: A study of New Zealand temps.Leadership and Organization Development Journal 24: 141–52.

Harris, R.J. 1985. A primer of multivariate statistics. 2nd edn. New York: Academic Press.Kondratuk, T.B., P.A. Hausdorf, K. Korabik, and H.M. Rosin. 2004. Linking career mobility with

corporate loyalty: How does job change relate to organizational commitment? Journal of VocationalBehavior 65: 332–49.

Laplagne, P., M. Glover, and T. Fry. 2005. The growth of labour hire employment in Australia. ProductivityCommission Staff Working Paper. Melbourne, February.papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=738904 (accessed 2 October 2008).

Liden, R.C., S.J. Wayne, M.L. Kraimer, and R.T. Sparrow. 2003. The dual commitments of contingentworkers: An examination of contingents’ commitment to the agency and the organization. Journal ofOrganizational Behavior 24: 609–25.

Lynch, P., R. Eisenberger, and S. Armeli. 1999. Perceived organizational support: Inferior-versus-superiorperformance by wary employees. Journal of Applied Psychology 84: 467–483.

McClurg, L.N. 1999. Organizational commitment in the temporary-help service industry. Journal ofApplied Management Studies 8: 5–26.

McDonald, D.J., and P.J. Makin. 2000. The psychological contract, organizational commitment and jobsatisfaction of temporary staff. Leadership and Organization Development Journal 21: 84–91.

Meyer, J.P., and N.J. Allen. 1991. A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment.Human Resource Management Review 1: 61–89.

Meyer, J.P., N.J. Allen, and C.A. Smith. 1993. Commitment to organizations and occupations: Extension andtest of a three-component conceptualization. Journal of Applied Psychology 78: 538–51.

Meyer, J.P., D.R. Bobocel, and N.J. Allen. 1991. Development of organizational commitment during thefirst year of employment: A longitudinal study of pre- and post-entry influences. Journal ofManagement 17: 717–733.

Meyer, J.P., and L. Herscovitch. 2001. Commitment in the workplace: Toward a general model. HumanResource Management Review 11: 299–326.

Meyer, J. P., D.J. Stanley, L. Herscovitch, and L. Topolnytsky. 2002. Affective, continuance, and normativecommitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and consequences.Journal of Vocational Behavior 61: 20–52.

Mowday, R.T. 1998. Reflection on the study and relevance of organizational commitment. HumanResource Management Review 8: 387–401.

O’Driscoll, M.P., and D.M. Randall. 1999. Perceived organizational support, satisfaction with rewards, andemployee job involvement and organizational commitment. Applied Psychology: An InternationalReview 48: 197–209.

Pearce, J.L. 1993. Toward an organizational behavior of contract laborers: Their psychologicalinvolvement and effects on employee co-workers. Academy of Management Journal 36: 108296.

Pink, B. 2005. Household labour force survey June 2005 quarter – Media release.www2.stats.govt.nz/domino/external/pasfull/pasfull.nsf/web/Media+Release+Household+Labour+Force+Survey+June+2005+quarter?open (accessed 5 October 2005).

Polivka, A.E., and T. Nardone. 1989. On the definition of contingent work.Monthly Labor Review 112(4):9–16.

05-106861-Veitch:Layout 1 7/9/2009 5:58 PM Page 338

Temporary agency workers’ commitments 339

Porter, G. 1995. Attitude differences between regular and contract employees of nursing departments.Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Vancouver.

Redman, T., and E. Snape. 2005. Unpacking commitment: Multiple loyalties and employee behavior.Journal of Management Studies 4: 301–28.

Reilly, P.A. 1998. Balancing flexibility: Meeting the interests of employer and employee. European Journalof Work and Organizational Psychology 7: 7–22.

Rhoades, L., R. Eisenberger, and S. Armeli. 2001. Affective commitment to the organization: Thecontribution of perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology 86: 825–36.

Rousseau, D.M., and K.A. Wade-Benzoni. 1995. Changing individual–organization attachments: A twoway street. In The changing nature of work, ed. A. Howard, 290–322. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Schalm R.L., and E.K. Kelloway. 2001. The relationship between response rate and effect size inoccupational health psychology research. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 6: 160–3.

Shore, L.M., and S.J. Wayne. 1993. Commitment and employee behavior: Comparison of affectivecommitment and continuance commitment with perceived organizational support. Journal of AppliedPsychology 78: 774–80.

Sverke, M., D.G. Gallagher, and J. Hellgren. 2000. Alternative work arrangements: Job stress, well-beingand pro-organizational attitudes among employees with different employment contracts. InHealtheffects of the new labor market, ed. K. Isaksson, C. Hogstedt, C. Eriksson, and T. Theorell, 145–67.New York: Plenum.

Tansky, J.W., D.G. Gallagher, and K.W. Wetzel. 1995. The changing nature of the employment contract:The impact of part-time workers on the health care industry. Paper presented at the annual meetingof the Academy of Management, Vancouver.

Thornthwaite, L. 2004. Working time and work-family balance: A review of employees’ preferences. AsiaPacific Journal of Human Resources 42(2): 166–84.

Van Breugel, G., W. Van Olffen, and R. Olie. 2005. Temporary liaisons: The commitment of ‘temps’towards their agencies. Journal of Management Studies 42: 539 – 566.

Van Dyne, L., and S. Ang. 1998. Organizational citizenship behavior of contingent workers in Singapore.Academy of Management Journal 41: 692–703.

Walsh, J., and S. Deery. 2006. Refashioning organizational boundaries: Outsourcing customer servicework. Journal of Management Studies 43: 557–82.

Wayne, S.J., L.M. Shore, and R.C. Liden. 1997. Perceived organizational support and leader–memberexchange: A social exchange perspective. Academy of Management Journal 40: 82–111.

Wright, P.M. and R.R. Kehoe. 2008. Human resource practices and organizational commitment: A deeperexamination. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 46(1): 6–20.

05-106861-Veitch:Layout 1 7/9/2009 5:58 PM Page 339