The mediating role of leader–member exchange: a study of job satisfaction and turnover intentions in temporary work

• Date: 01 January 2016
• Author: Marcel Allscher,Marina Fiedler,Miriam Flickinger
• Published date: 01 January 2016
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12091

The mediating role of leader–member exchange: a

study of job satisfaction and turnover intentions in

temporary work

Miriam Flickinger, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München,Munich School of

Management

Marcel Allscher and Marina Fiedler, Departmentof Business Administration and

Economics, University of Passau

Human Resource Management Journal, Vol 26,no 1, 2016, pages 46–62

This paper focuses on turnoverintentions in temporary work.Specifically, we analysewhether job satisfaction

and leader–member exchange (LMX) play the same role as antecedents of turnover intentions for both

temporary and permanent employees. Results from a total-effects moderation model based on a survey of

593 individualsplaced by a temporary workagency suggest that temporarywork lessens the impact thathigh

job satisfaction has in terms of reducing turnover intentions. Furthermore, while for permanent employees,

high-qualityLMX relationshipsplay a central role in the link between jobsatisfaction and turnoverintentions;

for temporaryemployees, job satisfaction is less importantin the formation of high-quality LMX relationships.

Therefore, wecontribute to knowledge on turnoverintentions in temporary work by showingthat within this

context, turnover intentions cannot be directly remedied by high job satisfaction and that temporary work

inhibits LMX’s reinforcing role in therelationship between job satisfaction and turnover intentions.

Contact: Miriam Flickinger, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Munich School of

Management, Ludwigstr. 28,80539 Munich, Germany. Email: flickinger@bwl.lmu.de

Keywords: temporary work; job satisfaction; turnover intentions; LMX

INTRODUCTION

This study seeks to extend knowledge on turnover intentions in temporary work.

Although the increased prevalence of temporary or other nonstandard types of work

arrangements have resulted in a rising amount of studies in this area (e.g. van Dyne

and Ang, 1998; Kalleberg, 2000; Koeneet al., 2004; Koene and van Riemsdijk, 2005;De Cuyper

et al., 2014), temporaryemployees’turnover intentions have received little scholarlyattention.

We consider this an important void because retention of talented employees is generally a

critical issue for organizations (Chen et al., 2011) and turnover has important financial and

social consequences for organizations, individuals and wider society (e.g. Morrell et al., 2004,

2008).

Moreover,the unexpected quitting of temporary employeesmay even be more problematic

when they are employed for a clearly defined task or project of current importance to the

organization (Matusik and Hill, 1998). Evidence that firms are using highly qualified

temporary workers as technical experts on important projects –for example, in the areas of

new product development, organizational restructuring and the design and installation of

complex new information systems (Wysocki,1996) –speaks for such a short-term significance

and irreplaceability of temporary employees (e.g. Ward et al., 2001; Cardon, 2003).

In our study, we focus on how temporary work affects the relationship between job

satisfaction, leader–member exchange (LMX) and turnover intentions. Both job satisfaction

Please citethis article in press as: Flickinger,M. Allscher, M. and Fiedler, M. (2016)‘The mediating role of leader–memberexchange: a study of job

satisfactionand turnoverintentions intemporary work’.HumanResource ManagementJournal 26: 1, 46–62

46 HUMAN RESOURCEMANAGEMENT JOURNAL, VOL26, NO 1, 2016

©2016 John Wiley& Sons Ltd.

doi: 10.1111/1748-8583.12091

bs_bs_banner

and LMX have been identified by previous research to be strongly linked to employees’

decisionsto quit their jobs (e.g. Graen et al., 1982; Mobley, 1982;Hom et al., 1992; Tett and Meyer,

1993; Homand Griffeth, 1995; Lee et al., 1996,1999; Gerstner and Day, 1997; Griffethet al., 2000).

We focus on the link between these variables not only to extend current knowledge on the

influence of job satisfaction and LMX on turnover intentions, we also aim to show that

temporary employees are less likely to convert early feelings of low job satisfaction into

turnover intentions. Furthermore, we argue that LMX or the quality of employees’relationships

with their supervisors (Liden and Maslyn, 1998)doesnotplaythesameimportantroleinthe

relationship between job satisfaction and turnover intentions for temporary employees as it does

for permanent employees. Together, we propose that temporary work not only influences

employees’individual assessments of their work content and conditions but also affects the

strength of social relationships that employees form at work. Via both channels, we suggest a

far-reaching impact of employment as a temporary worker on turnover intentions.

We ground our study in a definition of temporarywork that distinguishes it from standard

employment relationships on three dimensions (e.g. McLean Parks et al., 1998; Burgess and

Strachan, 1999; De Cuyper et al., 2008): (a) Temporary employment is of limited duration,

and contracts often include a fixed termination date, (b) unlike in temporary agency work,

temporary employees work on the employer’s premises and under his or her supervision,

and (c) temporary employment is associated with a lesser amount of statutory benefits and

entitlements such as minimum wage, unemployment insurance, protection against unfair

dismissal and paid leave. Furthermore, our study is based on anunderstanding of temporary

work thaton the one hand has traditionallybeen viewed as contingent employmentwhere jobs

are insecure and the associated precarity may cause strain for temporary workers (De Witte

and Naeswall, 2003; Finegold et al., 2005). At the same time, however, temporary work may

offer a number of advantages both to firms (e.g. Burgess and Connell, 2006) and individuals

(e.g. Mallon and Duberley, 2000).

The contributionsof our study are twofold. First, we extend knowledge on the relationship

between job satisfaction and turnoverintentions in a temporary work setting.While previous

studies have demonstrated a negative relationship between these two variables (e.g. Hom

et al., 1992; Tettand Meyer, 1993; Griffethet al., 2000), we are not awareof any studies that have

focused on differences between temporary and permanentemployees in this context. Potential

differences, however, may be decisive for an organization utilizing temporary work

arrangements torealize the benefits it has associatedwith this model. We also add to the large

body of research on job satisfaction in temporary employment (e.g. De Cuyper and De Witte,

2006, 2007; Wilkin, 2013) by emphasizing differences in its influence on the behaviour of

temporary versus permanent employees.

Our second contribution concerns temporary work’s influence on employees’relationships

with their supervisors. Prior literature has shown thatLMX relationships playa significant role

in employees’turnover intentions (Graen et al., 1982; Gerstner and Day, 1997; Griffeth et al.,

2000), suggesting that when the relationship between an employee and his or her supervisor

is characterizedby little trust and support,employees are more likely to think of quitting.While

some recent research has begun to analyse LMX’s role with regard to job satisfaction and

turnover intentions (Lapierre and Hackett, 2007; Volmer et al., 2011), we still lack knowledge

on how social exchange relationships such as LMX can influence temporary employees’

intentions to quit their job. Prior research suggests that temporary workers are viewed as

peripheral workers in whom employers are less likely to invest in order to encourage

commitment and loyalty in the organization (Zeytinoglu and Cooke, 2005; De Cuyper et al.,

2008). As a result, organizations generally do not expect emotional attachment and high

Miriam Flickinger,Marcel Allscher and MarinaFiedler

HUMAN RESOURCEMANAGEMENT JOURNAL, VOL26, NO 1, 2016 47

©2016 John Wiley& Sons Ltd.