The growth in temporary employment is driven mostly by employers’ demands for more flexibility and innovation, and by their wish to reduce labor costs and administrative complexity (Burgess & Connell, 2006). The temporary-help service industry has seen a dramatic growth in the last two decades as more and more companies have become clients of these agencies (De Cuyper et al., 2008). Temporary work is a form of nonregular employment in that the work is not performed at the employer’s place of business but at the site of the user enterprise. Thus, temporary work is based on a triangular relationship (Mitlacher, 2006). An employment relationship exists between the temporary-help service company and the temporary worker. The temporary-help service company is the sole employer of the temporary worker (Urban-Crell & Schulz, 2003). No legal connection exists between the temporary worker and the user enterprise (Urban-Crell & Schulz, 2003). The temporary worker is performing the assigned tasks at the site of the user enterprise (Niebler, Biebl, & Ross, 2003). There are certain problems associated with the integration of temporary workers into the user enterprise in the temporary labor market (Svensson & Wolven, 2010). The temporary workers are dominated by the difference in status (Olofsdotter, 2008; Svensson & Wolven, 2010). The relationship between permanent staff and the user enterprise can be made worse by the inclusion of temporary workers in the user enterprise, resulting in increased intention to leave among all the workers (Broschak & Davis-Blake, 2006). Unless this problem is addressed, the performance of the temporary workers cannot be enhanced (Chang & Hsu, 2009). The user enterprise must want to improve performance and competitiveness of the temporary worker. In this paper the relationship between the user enterprise and the temporary worker is investigated. The aims in the study were to establish the factors that will improve temporary worker performance and to develop a model to raise the level of performance of the temporary worker.

In the condition of temporary employment the employment relationship departs from the standard style because of the high level of heterogeneity of the temporary workforce (De Cuyper & De Witte, 2005). Therefore, in this study we used the concept of relationship marketing and internal marketing to build a model that would raise the performance level of the temporary worker. Relationship marketing involves both internal and external organizational relationships. To this end, in this study we based the methodology on the key mediating variables (KMV) model of Morgan and Hunt (1994) which makes use of the concepts of relationship marketing and internal marketing to identify certain factors that increase productivity in temporary workers. The determinants proposed in this model have served to form the basis of hypotheses on the differences between temporary and permanent workers in relation to various psychological outcomes (De Cuyper et al., 2008). The result was then used to construct a management system for temporary workers and to provide a supplementary method for constructing an internal partner relationship.

Literature Review

Berry (1983) stated that the purpose of relationship marketing is to establish, develop, and maintain successful relational exchanges. In the KMV model Morgan and Hunt (1994) clearly define all variables which cover most aspects of relationship marketing. Gruen, Summers, and Acito (2000) followed the concept of the KMV model to discuss how organizations use relationship commitment and trust to influence suppliers and customers. The focus of past literature using the KMV model has usually been on the relationship of business to business (B2B) and business to customer (B2C) and internal partners have not been considered. However, employees are both internal customers and suppliers (Lukas & Maignan, 1996). Thus the KMV model is a suitable vehicle for discussing the relationship between organization and employee.

The temporary worker is defined as a worker who is employed by a temporary-help service company and who works under the direction of a user enterprise. The wages of a temporary worker are set by the temporary-help service company, thus if user enterprises wish to increase the performance of their temporary workers they must utilize nonfinancial incentive action. Osterman (1988) suggests that job security is the central concept in improving the productivity of the temporary worker. Mathieu and Zajac (1990) proposed that organizations that provide increased job security and incentives can achieve a lower rate of absenteeism and intention to leave. Meyer and Allen (1984) see commitment as a major determinant of the employment relationship. A high level of employee commitment should contribute to good job performance (Meyer & Allen, 1997). The commitment of the employee is related to several behaviors, most notably intention to leave the organization and intention to search for job alternatives, but also to turnover and job performance (Mathieu & Zajac). In the research on commitment and trust, as well as in literature on temporary work, several behavioral responses are highlighted as possible outcome variables. Therefore, in order for the user enterprise to improve a temporary worker’s performance, the enterprise needs to recognize the importance of commitment and trust. In the KMV model it can be demonstrated how commitment and trust can be achieved between the internal partner and the company as well as the behavior response resulting from this commitment and trust.

The temporary worker who is working under the direction of a user enterprise can be defined as an internal partner in the user enterprise. The KMV model of relationship marketing sets out the relationship management action of an internal partner. Relationship commitment and trust are key constructs and are the mediating variables (Morgan & Hunt, 1994) between five important antecedents (i.e., relationship termination costs, relationship benefit, shared values, communication, and opportunistic behavior) and five outcomes (i.e., acquiescence, propensity to leave, cooperation, functional conflict, and decision-making uncertainty). Morgan and Hunt have previously verified every assumption in KMV model. In our study we adjusted the KMV model of relationship marketing by integrating the concepts of internal marketing to address the practical characteristics of the temporary worker. Explanation is provided only for assumptions that we revised or that we added.

Managers of the user enterprise usually show a difference in their management of and interactions with temporary workers versus permanent staff. For example, permanent staff members may deny resources to temporary workers and treat them as inferior (Olofsdotter, 2008; Svensson & Wolven, 2010). The more the employees perceive injustice and job insecurity as arising from the workplace, the more they might reciprocate by exhibiting more negative attitudes (Salami, 2010) such as reduced organizational commitment, a lack of trust, and withholding organizational citizenship behavior (OCB). Therefore, in the antecedent factors of the KMV model, in this study two variables were added: interaction justice and shared work values. Interaction justice is defined as the difference in the attitudes of the user enterprise and work distribution determined by user enterprise managers between temporary workers and permanent staff, and the perception of justice by the temporary workers. The shared work value is defined as the unified perception by both the temporary workers and the user enterprise of the position of temporary workers. The contractual obligations among temporary workers, the user enterprise, and the temporary-help service company do not allow for a voluntary termination of a mutual relationship. Therefore, in this study we eliminated the relationship termination cost variable of the KMV model.

We added an avoidance of work destructive behavior variable to the relationship marketing model because temporary workers show responses that are distinctly different from the three variables previously identified in regard to avoidance of work destructive behavior. Spector and Fox (2002) pointed out that when the employee no longer wishes to maintain a relationship with the organization or is distrustful of the organization, he or she will produce a self-initiated work destructive behavior. Examples include aggression, abstention from labor, and harming the organization in a systematic manner. Through an interview with user enterprises, we established that user enterprises placed additional emphasis on this factor in relation to the temporary workers. Therefore, in this research we added this variable into the KMV model.

The original subjects of the KMV model in the relationship marketing outcome variable were external clients. In this study the focus on the internal partner caused us to change the outcome variable to employee performance. A type of general behavior that is frequently associated with the effects of the relationship between employee and employer is organizational citizenship behavior (OCB; Gilder, 2003) which is concerned with the willingness of employees to take the initiative to make extra contributions to the company to benefit the organization. Through observation of the behavior of temporary workers, we found that their OCB includes reducing the intention to leave the user enterprise and having confidence in the future of the user enterprise. Those feelings can reduce their degree of uncertainty. Thus, in this study we replaced the variables “propensity to leave”, “functional conflict”, and “uncertainty” with the single variable of organizational citizenship behavior.

Hypotheses we developed to test the relationship among antecedent factors, mediator factors, and outcome factors were as follows:
H1. Relationship benefits will positively influence relationship commitment.
H2. Interaction justice will positively influence relationship commitment.
H3. Interaction justice will positively influence trust.
H4. Shared work values will positively influence relationship commitment.
H5. Shared work values will positively influence trust.
H6. Communication will positively influence relationship commitment.
H7. Communication will positively influence trust.
H8. Opportunistic behavior will negatively influence trust.
H9. Trust will positively influence relationship commitment.
H10. Relationship commitment will positively influence acquiescence.
H11. Relationship commitment will positively influence organizational citizenship behavior.
H12. Trust will positively influence organizational citizenship behavior.
H13. Relationship commitment will positively influence cooperation.
H14. Trust will positively influence cooperation.
H15. Relationship commitment and avoidance of work destructive behavior will be positively correlated.
H16. Trust and avoidance of work destructive behavior will be positively correlated.

Method

The aim in this study was to examine the factors affecting the performance of temporary workers. We determined the factors that may affect the temporary worker’s performance through a literature review and by interview analysis. Then, a structural equation model (SEM) was utilized to describe the relationship between antecedent factors and outcome factors. The model was tested using LISREL version 8.54.

Data Collection

Our sample was a group of Taiwan’s temporary workers. Telephone and email were used to contact the staff of temporary work agencies by random sampling. Data were then collected by sending copies of a questionnaire and a covering letter stating the purpose of the survey to temporary work agencies. The questionnaires were then passed on to temporary workers for them to complete. All respondents were asked to send the completed questionnaire back to the researcher in the return postage-paid envelope provided. Five hundred questionnaires were sent out and 296 questionnaires were returned, but 12 were invalid resulting in 284 valid questionnaires for analysis, or an effective response rate of 46.8%. Respondents also represented both genders (females constituted 65.4%; males made up 34.6%). The majority were not married. Respondents varied widely in age (35 years of age, 81.6%; 36-40 years of age, 6.8%; 41-45 years of age, 8.1%; 46-50 years of age, 2.6%), education (high school diploma, 28.2%; some college education, 69.2%; graduate level, 2.6%), and years of business experience (1 year, 78.6%; 1-2 years, 14.5%; 2-3 years, 5.1%; >3 years, 1.7%). The firms represented in the sample came from a wide range of sectors (manufacturing, 43.6%; service industries 30.3%; banking and finance, 0.9%; other information service 7.7%; government, 11.1%).

Measures

All measures were analyzed for validity and reliability following the guidelines offered by Morgan and Hunt (1994) and Turnley, Bolino, Lester, and Bloodgood (2003). The self-administered questionnaire involves the use of a 7-point Likert-type scale (ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree) to measure the items of the following constructs. All measures showed satisfactory to good internal consistency (Table 1), supporting the reliability of the measurement models. Several of the items in the KMV model continuance commitment scale focus on relationship benefits, shared values, communication, and opportunistic behavior. We modified four of the items in this scale to measure the relationship benefit as projected by Anderson and Narus (1990). Through the use of interviews with industry experts we developed two items to measure interaction justice. The communication scale was derived from Morgan and Hunt and opportunistic behavior was measured using a scale developed by John (1984). The 3-item relationship commitment scale and 3-item trust scale developed by Morgan and Hunt were used. Six items in a study on internal marketing by Tansuhaj, Randall, and McCullough (1988) helped to support our definition. A 6-item scale used by Turner et al. was adopted. The conceptualization of the OCB measure was based on the definition by Organ (1990) which fitted the characteristics of the temporary-help service industry. The 12-item Organizational Citizenship Behavior scale was developed by Turner et al. Given our conceptualization of cooperation, it was essential that its measure should capture its importance with the respondent. Temporary workers proactively coordinate with permanent staff, and they work together to reach common goals. To measure the effect of cooperation we developed a 2-item scale. The factor and its items are shown in Table 1.

Table 1 show the means, standard deviations, and scale reliabilities. It is worth noting that the standard deviations for the 10 scales range from 1.01 to 1.52 (M = 1.21), indicating a substantial amount of variance in the responses. Most importantly, the standard deviations for the five exogenous variables indicated high variance to be explained (M = 1.32). Of the means of the 13 scales, 8 were within one-half scale point of the center of the scales. This absence of skewness, when combined with the standard deviations, suggests that in our sample respondents had both effective and ineffective relationships, at least on the qualitative dimensions studied.

A good model fit is shown when RMSEA is below .08 (Browne & Cudeck, 1993) and the CFI scores are above .90 (Byrne, 1998). In our analysis, the resulting measurement model χ² ₍₂₄₉₎ was 589.69 (p = .000), while the other fit indices were: RMSEA = .076, CFI = .97, GFI = 0.83, AGFI = 0.78. NNFI = 0.96 fit a 95% confidence level. Overall, the KMV model performed well. Figure 1 displays all paths.

The antecedent variable is the building of a relationship commitment and trust. The hypothesized path from interaction justice to relationship commitment and trust was not supported. In our study we found that because temporary workers think of themselves as different from permanent staff, trust and relationship commitment of our respondents were not affected by the differences in the attitudes and work distribution of the managers. The temporary workers believed that temporary work is meant to be short-term, and they did not especially want to maintain long-term relationships. Therefore hypotheses 2, 3, and 4 were not supported. The temporary workers we surveyed replied that if they received enough information at their place of work, then their trust in the user enterprise would increase. So hypotheses 5 and 6 were supported. When the temporary workers we surveyed experienced problems at work, they would generally report these issues to the temporary-work service company rather than to the user enterprise. Consequently, the communication between the user enterprise and the temporary workers was generally facilitated by a specialist assigned by the temporary-work service company. Temporary workers therefore had a difficult time trying to establish trust in the user enterprise through communication. So hypothesis 7 was not supported. A user enterprise can provide relationship benefits if it wishes to increase the temporary workers’ relationship commitment. Respondents to our survey said that when temporary workers believe that the user enterprise does not engage in any opportunistic behavior they were more willing to trust the user enterprise. Thus hypotheses 1 and 8 were supported.

Trust is used to affect relationship commitment. Based on their trust in the user enterprise, temporary workers in our survey valued their relationship with the user enterprise, and expended effort seeking future opportunities for cooperation. This finding supports hypothesis 9.

The mediating variable is used to develop outcome variables. All paths leading to the four outcomes were significant at p < .01, except for hypothesis 14. Trust did not influence the cooperation that takes place between temporary workers and permanent staff. The temporary workers in our study said they must also value their relationships with the user enterprise in order to cooperate with the permanent staff and reach the goals of the organization. The temporary workers valued their relationship with their user enterprise, and were willing to work hard to maintain a positive relationship. The temporary workers also worked hard to improve performance, in the hope of being offered continued employment opportunities or becoming a permanent member of staff. In considering benefits to the user enterprise they were working in, the temporary workers in our study said they had an emotional investment in that enterprise and were willing voluntarily to increase their contributions and help coworkers. The temporary workers also avoided reckless or negative behavior and cooperated with the permanent staff of the enterprise to complete the objectives assigned by the user enterprise. Those points were in support of hypotheses 10, 11, and 13. The temporary workers who put their trust in the user enterprise were more willing to accept the risks that come with this kind of relationship. They also voluntarily displayed behavior that included helping coworkers or the organization. This finding was in support of hypothesis 12.

The empirical results and KMV model of Morgan and Hunt (1994) both support the mediating variables (i.e., commitment and trust) between antecedent variables (i.e., relationship benefit, communication, and opportunistic behavior) and outcome variables (i.e., acquiescence and cooperation). The results gained in our study add two more outcome variables of organizational citizenship behavior and avoidance of work destructive behavior.

De Cuyper and De Witte (2005) found less commitment among permanent workers than among temporary workers. Results of another study point to the temporary worker having higher levels of commitment towards the user enterprise than towards the agency (Van Breugel, Van Olffen, & Olie, 2005). In this study we found that the degree of commitment was influenced by antecedent variables, so that, as the user enterprise increases relationship benefit and communication, commitment to user enterprise by the temporary workers also increases.

Discussion

The results gained in our study show that the core concept of relationship marketing cannot be suitably used only in constructing and maintaining the relationship between B2B and B2C; this concept also has a significant influence on internal partner relationships. Under the condition of the unique characteristic of the triangular arrangement of the temporary-help service industry, the temporary workers and the user enterprise, there exists a vast difference in the employment relationship, protection, rights, and the treatment of permanent employees as compared with temporary workers. To the temporary workers, trust and relationship commitment are even more important than they are to the permanent employee. Once the temporary worker trusts the user enterprise and has formed a relationship commitment to it, behaviors of tacit consent, OCB, and cooperation will be formed, and destructive behaviors will be avoided.

The findings gained in this research have shown how the user enterprise can initiate and establish trust and relationship commitment between temporary workers and a user enterprise through relationship marketing activities. Relationship marketing activities include providing educational training, opportunities for continued employment and to become a permanent employee, and other related beneficial relationships. The user enterprise can also request the temporary work agencies to cultivate an appropriate attitude in the temporary workers through preemployment educational training. Through this training temporary workers will come to understand how they are different from permanent employees so that both parties can construct a uniform value system regarding the temporary workforce. There must be coordination and communication of information among all the plays in the temporary-help service industry, that is, the temporary work agencies, the user enterprises, and the temporary workers. User enterprises must at all times maintain a level of communication with the temporary work agencies, sufficient for the delivery of accurate information to the temporary workers in a timely and efficient manner, and, conversely, opportunistic behaviors by user enterprises must be reduced. User enterprises should put relationship marketing activities into practice and establish and maintain a trusting and committed relationship with the temporary work agencies and establish an attitude and behaviors that are beneficial to those enterprises.

The number of temporary workers leaving their current job and the turnover rate of temporary workers are both higher than those of permanent employees (Amuedo-Dorantes & Malo, 2008). Respondents in this research had worked for an average of less than two years in the temporary-help service industry. Researchers (Kunda, Barley, & Evans, 2002; Rassuli, 2005; U.S. Bureau of Labor, 2005) have found that the utilization of professional temporary workers (that is, workers who are highly trained and who have joined the contingent labor market voluntarily through an employment agency) has been increasing gradually worldwide. These people have traits that are different from the nonprofessional temporary worker. Therefore, it is recommended that the focus of follow-up research should be on various types of positions and temporary workers should be considered as two human resource groups: professional and nonprofessional, in order to explore this model further. Currently, the biggest problem in the temporary-help service industry is that the user enterprises have yet to design an induction procedure that is designed specifically for the temporary worker. We recommend that follow-up research should include in-depth exploration and discussion on this issue.

Amuedo-Dorantes, C., & Malo, M. A. (2008). How are fixed-term contracts used by firms? An analysis using gross job and worker flows. Research in Labor Economics, 28, 277-304.

Anderson, J. C., & Narus, J. A. (1990). A model of distributor firm and manufacturer firm working partnerships. Journal of Marketing, 54(1), 42-58.

Berry, L. L. (1983). Relationship marketing. In L. Berry, G. Shostack, & G. Upah (Eds.), Emerging perspectives on services marketing (pp. 25-28). Chicago, IL: American Marketing Association.

Broschak, J. P., & Davis-Blake, A. (2006). Mixing standard work and non-standard deals: The consequences of heterogeneity in employment arrangements. Academy of Management Journal, 49(2), 371-93.

Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Newbury Park: Sage.

Burgess, J., & Connell, J. (2006). Temporary work and human resource management: Issues, challenges, and responses. Personnel Review, 35(2), 129-140.

Byrne, B. M. (1998). Structural equation modeling with LISREL, PRELIS, and SIMPLIS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Chang, C. P., & Hsu, P. C. (2009). The psychological contract of the temporary employee in the public sector in Taiwan. Social Behavior and Personality: An international journal, 37(6), 721-728.

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 Cuyper, N., de Jong, J., De Witte, H., Isaksson, K., Rigotti, T., & Schalk, R. (2008). Literature review of theory and research on the psychological impact of temporary employment: Towards a conceptual model. International Journal of Management Reviews, 10(1), 25-51.

de Gilder, D. (2003). Commitment, trust, and work behaviour. Personnel Review, 32(5), 588-604.

Gruen, T. W., Summers, J. O., & Acito, F. (2000). Relationship marketing activities, commitment, and membership behaviors in professional associations. Journal of Marketing, 64(3), 34-49.

John, G. (1984). An empirical investigation of some antecedents of opportunism in a marketing channel. Journal of Marketing Research, 21(3), 278-289.

Kunda, G., Barley, S. R., & Evans, J. (2002). Why do contractors contract? The experience of highly skilled technical professionals in a contingent labor market. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 55(2), 234-257.

Lukas, B. A., & Maignan, I. (1996). Striving for quality: The key role of internal and external customers. Journal of Market-Focused Management, 1(2), 175-187.

Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. M. (1990). A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates, and consequences of organizational commitment. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 171-194.

Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1984). Testing the “side-bet theory” of organizational commitment: Some methodological considerations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(3), 372-378.

Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace: Theory, research, and application. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Mitlacher, L. W. (2006). The organization of human resource management in temporary work agencies – towards a comprehensive research agenda on temporary agency work in Germany, the Netherlands and the US. Human Resource Management Review, 16(1), 67-81.

Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (1994). The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing. The Journal of Marketing, 58(3), 20-38.

Niebler, M., Biebl, J., & Ross, C. (2003). Arbeitnehmerüberlassungsgesetz: Ein leitfaden für die betriebliche praxis [Temporary Employment Act: A manual of company manpower practice]. Berlin: Schmidt (Erich).

Olofsdotter, G. (2008). Flexibilitetens fra¨mlingar-Om ansta¨llda i bemanningsfo¨retag [Flexibility strangers: On temporary work]. Doctoral thesis 47, Department of Social Sciences, Mid Sweden University, Sundsvall.

Organ, D. W. (1990). The motivational basis of organizational citizenship behavior. Research in Organizational Behavior, 12, 43-72.

Osterman, P. (1988). Employment futures: Reorganization, dislocation, and public policy. New York, Oxford University Press.

Rassuli, A. (2005). Evolution of the professional contingent workforce. Journal of Labor Research, 26(4), 689-710.

Salami, S. O. (2010). Conflict resolution strategies and organizational citizenship behavior: The moderating role of trait emotional intelligence. Social Behavior and Personality: An international journal, 38(1), 75-86.

Spector, P. E., & Fox, S. (2002). An emotion-centered model of voluntary work behavior: Some parallels between counterproductive work behavior and organizational citizenship behavior. Human Resource Management Review, 12(2), 269-292.

Svensson, S., & Wolven L. E. (2010). Temporary agency workers and their psychological contracts. Employee Relations, 32(2), 184-199.

Tansuhaj, P., Randall, D., & McCullough, J. (1988). A services marketing management model integrating internal and external marketing functions. The Journal of Services Marketing, 2(1), 31-38.

Turnley, W. H., Bolino, M. C., Lester, S. W., & Bloodgood, J. M. (2003). The impact of psychological contract fulfillment on the performance of in-role and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Management, 29(2), 187-206.

Urban-Crell, S., & Schulz, C. (2003). Arbeitnehmeruberlassung und Arbeitsvermittlung [Employee assignment and job placement]. München: Beck.

U.S. Bureau of Labor. (2005). Contingent and alternative employment arrangements. Statistics, February 2005. Washington, DC: United States Department of Labor.

Van Breugel, G., Van Olffen, W., & Olie, R. (2005). Temporary liaisons: The commitment of ‘temps’ towards their agencies. Journal of Management Studies, 42(3), 539-566.

The authors would like to thank the National Science Council of the Republic of China

Taiwan

for supporting this research financially under Contract No. NSC 96-2221-E-029-001.
Appreciation is due to reviewers including

Jar-Yuan Pai

Chung Shan Medical University

Taichung City

ROC

Email

[email protected]

Ying-Chyi Chou, Department of Business Administration, Tunghai University, No. 181, Section 3, Taichung Port Road, Taichung 40704, Taiwan, ROC. Phone: 886-4-23590121, ext. 35122; Fax: 886-4-23594107; Email: [email protected]