Organizational Commitment Study of White-Collar,

Organizational Commitment

Study of White-Collar, Seasonal Contingent Worker's Organizational Commitment within a Wholly (99%) Seasonal Environment

The past several decades have witnessed a number of fundamental transformations in the American workforce, including an increased number of non-traditional workers such as contingent workers (Mayfield & Mayfield, 2007). These types of nontraditional employment arrangement can provide a number of advantages for companies because they offer more cost-effective and flexible staffing arrangements, and have been shown to improve employee morale and the retention of high quality employees who prefer nonstandard work hours (Mayfield & Mayfield). According to these authors, in spite of the increasing reliance on contingent and other nontraditional workers, there remains a dearth of research concerning relevant best practices in motivating these workers. Consequently, a number of the potential cost and performance benefits that have been associated with nontraditional work may not be realized by many companies (Mayfield & Mayfield). In fact, David (2005) suggests that while contingent workers can provide organizations of all types of with a number of benefits, she also cautions that the improved morale of traditional employees and the cost-effectiveness associated with contingent worker arrangements can easily be lost if a sense of organizational commitment does not exist among these nontraditional employees. As David points out, "Skilled contingent workers provide flexible and competent labor with fewer long-term financial commitments for firms than regular employment, but their potential indirect costs possibly outweigh these benefits. Reactions from regular employees may require action from human resource managers to minimize the negative outcomes for companies" (p. 32). Indeed, these negative outcomes can be difficult to discern because of the temporary nature of the employment arrangements involved with contingent workers and can be even more complicated to measure amongst the company's traditional employees. The impact of these negative outcomes, though, can be dramatic. In this regard, David also notes that, "Skilled contingent workers may introduce feelings of inequity in regular employees and provide information about work opportunities outside the hiring companies. These influences may lower productivity or increase voluntary turnover. Consequently, companies may implement policies to increase their employees' organizational commitment" (p. 32).

In response to the growing numbers of contingent workers being used by American companies each year, researchers are beginning to examine organizational commitment and job satisfaction in more comprehensive ways. For instance, a study by Meyer, Becker and Vandenberghe (2004) found that, "Motivated behavior can be accompanied by different mindsets that have particularly important implications for the explanation and prediction of discretionary work behavior" (p. 991). Likewise, a recent study by Fiorito, Bozeman, Young and Meurs (2007) notes that, "Organizational commitment persists as a primary variable of interest in studies of employment, organizations, and allied fields. Numerous studies have shown that organizational commitment predicts important variables, including absenteeism, organizational citizenship, performance, and turnover" (p. 186). Researchers have also determined that organizational commitment is inversely related to intent to search for job alternatives as well as intent to leave a job; moreover, organizational commitment has also been associated with more positive organizational outcomes, including job satisfaction and attendance motivation (Fiorito et al.). As these authors emphasize, "These studies underscore organizational commitment's importance and thus the need to understand better its antecedents" (Fiorito et al., p. 186). Indeed, when changes in employment practices are introduced in virtually any type of organization, employees may reevaluate their organizational commitment in a different way. According to Cohen (2003), "When a long-term, individual-organizational exchange relationship is disrupted, work ethic endorsement may ultimately become a less central value for the individual concerned. Career commitment may take priority over organizational commitment, particularly in the case of temporary or part-time employees" (p. 5).

The numbers of workers involved in this analysis are not insignificant either. In fact, the U.S. Census Bureau (2005) reports that contingent workers account for 5.7 million or about 5.5% of the total U.S. workforce today. Based on existing trends toward outsourcing and contingent worker use, it is reasonable to assert that the trends will continue to accelerate in the future. This point is made by Chen (n.d.) who emphasizes, "Organizations are facing major challenges, many of them resulting in restructuring, reengineering and downsizing. Work environments have become more complex and sophisticated. The need for leadership and personal commitments has become more critical" (p. 3). Likewise, Allan and Sienko note that while estimates of the number of contingent workers vary, "Clearly contingent workers are a large and important component of the U.S. workforce that is unlikely to lessen in importance in the foreseeable future" (p. 5). Contingent workers therefore represent a fundamentally different set of challenges of human resource services today, and organizations that are able to manage this critical resource effectively will have a competitive advantage over those that do not. As Kraut and Korman (1999) put it, "Organizations need to attract and select [contingent] workers who won't jump ship but who can swim from ship to shore (or ship to ship) as needed, and who can keep their bearings when pushed" (p. 71).

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study is to fill a gap in knowledge in the study of contingent workers. There is a gap of knowledge on seasonal in-house-hired, white-collar contingent workers. Most companies either base their constructs of these employees on their "standard" worker, or on the research of general seasonal workers (Gallagher, & Sverke, 2005; Hughes, & Palmer, 2007). This study will reaserch the organizational commitment of only white-collar seasonal contingent workers, who work in a (99%) wholly seasonal workforce. The U.S. Bureau of Labor and Statistics defined these types of positions as being "jobs structured to last for only a limited period of time" (quoted in Prywes, 2000 at p. 19).

This study will anaylize the job satisfaction and organizational commitment of these nontraditinal workers. Studies have shown (Feinstein, 2001) that there is a direct corralation between job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Motivation may be a factor which affects job satisfaction which in turn affects organizational commitment, but the proposed study will focus only on job satisfaction and organizational commitment.

Importance of the Study

The current economic crisis facing the United States has created the need for more effective use of resources that are by definition scarce. Many businesses have resorted to using so-called contingent workers to help them achieve their organizational goals while minimizing their personnel costs. In fact, some industries have come to increasingly rely on their very survival by using contingent workers. According to Allan and Sienko (1999), "Businesses, not-for-profit enterprises, and public jurisdictions have come to rely on the help of workers who are hired on a 'contingent' basis for a period of time that could range from a few days to years. In contrast, permanent or 'core' workers typically have full-time jobs and enjoy privileges not available to contingent workers" (p. 4).

Not surprisingly, then, the respective levels of job satisfaction and organizational commitment among these groups of workers are also different. In this regard, Allan and Sienko emphasize that, "Unlike core workers, contingent workers are considered as having a tenuous relationship with an employer, as lacking a long-term attachment, and are not paid benefits such as vacations, health insurance, and pensions" (p. 5).

Given the primary need to examine organizational commitment in a broad-based fashion and the dearth of relevant studies concerning contingent workers in general and seasonal in-house-hired, white-collar contingent workers in particular, the proposed study is deemed to represent a timely and valuable contribution to the existing body of knowledge.

Rationale of the Study

In 2005, the Bureau of Labor Statistic's data showed 5.7 million workers, or around 4 to 5% of the total workforce in the United States as contingent workers. Freedman (1985) coined the phrase "contingent worker," which means any non-conventional worker: temporary, seasonal, day laborer, or part-time worker. There are now many additional sub-categories of contingent workers: at will, contract, limited contract, and flex workers, (Connelly, C. And Gallagher, D. 2004 et al.). This new worker is still unknown. The contingent worker has just started to be researched, analyzed, and compared to the "standard" worker (Belous, 1989; Connelly, and Gallagher, 2004; Baker and Christensen, 1988; Gallagher and Sverke 2005; Hipple, 2001; Hughes and Palmer, 2007; Negyesi and Szabl, 2005 et al.).

One subcategory of the contingent worker is the seasonal worker. There is also a gap of knowledge on seasonal in-house-hired, white-collar contingent workers. Most companies either base their constructs of these employees on their "standard" worker, or on the research of general seasonal workers (Gallagher, & Sverke, 2005; Hughes, & Palmer, 2007). Contingent workers may or may not work part-time, and there are some distinctions in the literature for these workers as well. For instance, Mayfield and Mayfield note that, "Part-time employees, technically those persons who work less than thirty-five hours per week, are often included in the broader category of contingent work, a classification which the Bureau of Labor Statistics also applies to such workers as the self-employed, contract personnel, on-call hires, leased employees, and temp agency workers" (p. 132) According to Prywes (2000), an analysis of non-traditional employees such as contingent workers requires a distinction, though: "Not all part-time workers are also contingent workers, although many are. Since the increased presence of a part-time workforce and the emergence of contingent workers are two of the most common, nonstandard work statuses evidenced in recent U.S. history, their development is worthy of considerable attention" (emphasis added) (p. 16).

White-collar contingent workers, and the human resource departments responsible for their administration, though, are both confronted with some motivational factors that may not be shared by their traditional counterparts, particularly those working in fields where seasonal employment may be the rule rather than the exception. For example, Toutkoushian and Bellas (2003) report that while contingent workers in educational settings are frequently used in ways that are beneficial both to institutions and to the individual faculty member, the increased use of these white-collar contingent workers is a dramatic departure from prevoius conceptions of higher education and in the conditions of employment for faculty. According to these authors, "While part-time faculty are often portrayed as being marginalized contingent workers who are poorly paid and comprise a lower caste of faculty, research shows that this description fits some, but not all part-time faculty" (Toutkoushian & Bellas, p. 172).

Because this portrayal of "marginalized, poorly paid, lower caste "is considered to fit some white-collar contingent workers, it is reasonable to posit that these professionals will have some drastically different motivational issues to be considered compared to their traditional counterparts, and their sense of organizational commitment may suffer as well. As Toutkoushian and Bellas aslo note, "Concern for those who do labor under exploitive conditions has brought criticism from several professional organizations. Indeed, the National Education Association describes the 'misuse and abuse of part-time, temporary, and nontenure track faculty... [as] one of the most serious problems confronting American higher education'" (quoted at p. 173).

Furthermore, Colbert and Kwon (2000) emphasize that while the effective management of contingent workers can add significant value to an organization, it is important to understand the relationship between the job satisfaction levels of nontraditional employees and their sense of organizational commitment. As organizations recognize the competitive advantage that can be gained through human resources, research on organizational commitment has gained importance. According to Colbert and Kwon, "Determining factors related to organizational commitment may be useful on several levels. Organizational commitment has been found to be strongly related to the intention to leave one's job and to the intention to search for job alternatives" (p. 484). In addition, resarchers have identified a positive relationship between organizational commitment and lateness and organizational commitment and turnover (Colbert & Kwon).

Therefore, by identifying the fundamental aspects of organizational commitment for contingent workers can help companies of all types better manage these resources. In this regard, Colbert and Kown conclude that, "The knowledge of the antecedents of organizational commitment will enable organizations to manage these withdrawal behaviors" (p. 484). Unfortunately, as Fiorito and his colleagues point out, "Many issues concerning organizational commitment remain poorly understood. For example, scholars contend that many organizations adopt Human Resources (HR) practices intended to maximize employee commitment, yet, with few exceptions, little systematic research examines the influence of HR practices, including practices intended to promote commitment" (p. 186). In addition, despite the fact that the existing body of knowledge concerning organizational commitment suggests that the organizational structure involved influences commitment, these effects also remain relatively understudied (Fiorito et al.).

Theoretical Framework

The theoretical framework that will be used to guide the proposed study is the concept of organizational commitment. Although definitions of organizational commitment vary in the peer-reviewed and scholarly literature, one commonly used definition provided by Porter and his colleagues early on (1974) contained three factors of organizational commitment: (a) a strong belief in and acceptance of the organization's goals and values, (b) a willingness to exert considerable effort on behalf of the organization, and - a strong desire to remain in the organization. To measure these factors, the authors developed a 15-item organizational commitment questionnaire (OCQ) to measure organizational commitment based on the foregoing definition (Colbert & Kwon, 2000).

Likewise, Allen and Meyer (1990) conceptualized organizational commitment as consisting of three fundamental components: (a) affective (this component refers to the employee's emotional attachment to, identification with, and involvement in the organization); (b) continuance (this component refers to commitment based on the costs that the employee associates with leaving the organization); and, - normative (this component refers to the employee's feelings of obligation to remain with the organization). For their purposes, Allen and Meyer (1990) also developed a 24-item scale in order to measure these three components of organizational commitment. The affective component of organizational commitment conceptualized by Allen and Meyer views workers as identifying with their organization and being committed to retaining their employment in order to achieve their own personal and professional goals (Cohen, 2003). According to Cohen, "The origins of this treatment of [organizational] commitment perhaps lie principally in the work of Porter and his associates and has been termed affective commitment and value commitment" (p. 19).

The growing body of organizational behavior literature (Meyer and Allen, 1991) concerning inter-firm relations also highlights the multifaceted aspects of the construct itself (Meyer & Allen, 1991). According to Meyer, Allen and Smith (1991), organizational commitment has typically been conceptualized as being a cognitive-affective state in the management literature, a state that is comprised of elements of continuance, affective, and normative dimensions. In this regard, Cohen suggests that a comprehensive analytical approach is much more useful in examining organizational commitment, particularly during turbulent employment times. As Cohen points out, "In a dynamic environment employees may be committed to different entities in different settings. Magnitudes of commitments may differ across time, industries, professions, and cultures" (p. 7). These constructs can be elusive and difficult to analyze, though, if they are investigated in isolation of each other. According to Cohen, "All this can be captured if we apply a multiple commitment approach, but we may miss it if we concentrate on one commitment. This probably constitutes one reason for the broadening consensus among commitment theorists and researchers that commitment is a multidimensional construct" (p. 7).

Research Questions

Research Hypotheses.

H1: Job satisfaction of contingent workers as measured by the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire and the Organizational Commitment Questionnaire will be less than that recorded for traditional workers by a statistically significant amount.

H2: Organizational commitment of contingent workers as measured by the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire and the Organizational Commitment Questionnaire will be less than that recorded for traditional workers by a statistically significant amount.

H3: Job satisfaction among contingent workers can be improved by a statistically significant amount through the analysis of the results of the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire and the Organizational Commitment Questionnaire.

H4: Organizational commitment among contingent workers can be improved by a statistically significant amount through the analysis of the results of the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire and the Organizational Commitment Questionnaire.

Null Hypotheses.

N1: Job satisfaction of contingent workers as measured by the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire and the Organizational Commitment Questionnaire will be comparable to or higher than that recorded for traditional workers by a statistically significant amount.

H2: Organizational commitment of contingent workers as measured by the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire and the Organizational Commitment Questionnaire will be comparable to or higher than that recorded for traditional workers by a statistically significant amount.

N3: Job satisfaction among contingent workers cannot be improved by a statistically significant amount through the analysis of the results of the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire and the Organizational Commitment Questionnaire.

N4: Organizational commitment among contingent workers cannot be improved by a statistically significant amount through the analysis of the results of the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire and the Organizational Commitment Questionnaire.

Significance of the Study

To date, there remains a paucity of timely research concerning white-collar, seasonal contingent workers as part of a wholly seasonal workforce; rather, the majority of studies to date measure these workers against their full-time counterparts. Moreover, an analysis of job satisfaction and organizational commitment among contingent workers has not been the focus of many studies, apparently because such workers are not regarded as being a permanent part of the organization, but as Kraut and Korman (1999) put it, "Rather come and go as needed for specific assignments" (p. 71). As these authors also emphasize, though, "Yet the organization still depends on their performance to achieve its objectives. Because organizations do not have a long-term claim on these workers, the need for effective methods to recruit contingent personnel quickly is increasing" (Kraut & Korman, p. 71).

In addition, there are some significant issues to be taken into account when recruiting contingent workers that can have a significant influence either positively or negatively on the organization. When white-collar contingent workers are hired to temporarily satisfy the seasonal demands of a company, these individuals may be placed in positions of some authority and carry some heavy responsibilities. For example, Kraut and Korman emphasize that, "The importance of accurately assessing potential employees before hire is escalating dramatically. People with whom the organization has little history are brought in to play important and responsible roles; they are expected to be fully functional immediately, with no probationary period, training, or mentoring" (p. 71).

Because of the transient nature of the employment relationship and the tenuous relationship that exists between contingent workers and employers, it is critical to identify qualified contingent worker candidates as well as those factors that may contribute to their sense of job satisfaction and organizational commitment in ways that can make their tenure with the organization an asset instead of a liability. For instance, Kraut and Korman conclude that, "Many of these [contingent] workers do not have the traditional employee's accountability, nor is the organization always able to monitor or supervise them closely. Under these conditions, the cost of hiring the wrong person is very high" (p. 71). By hiring the right person for the job, though, companies will be able to reap the benefits typically associated with flexible employment arrangements without experiencing the adverse effects that can accrue to organizations that use these employment arrangements without taking into account the constructs of job satisfaction and organizational commitment.

Research Design

The proposed study will use a quantitative method of research and two questionnaires: (a) the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ) developed by Weiss, Dawis, English, and Lofquist (1967), and (b) the Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (OCQ) developed Mowday, Steers, and Porter (1979). Although both questionnaires may be considered old, they are still the standard instruments for measuring job satisfaction (MSQ) (Nerison, 1999, Feinstein 2001, Blake 2004, Hayran 2006) and organizational commitment (OCQ) (Feinstein 2001, Gordon 2006; Cohen, 2003).

Evidence of concurrent validity of the MSQ was gathered from an examination of occupational group differences in satisfaction. Analysis of data for the 25 occupational groups (N=2,955) revealed that group differences were statistically significant at.001 level for both means and variances on all 20 dimensions of the MSQ. The MSQ also is available in three versions; two long and one short. The proposed study intends to use the 20-question short form. Each question in the MSQ is a 5-point Likert-scaled response ranging from very dissatisfied to very satisfied (Schwab, 2005).

The (OCQ) has validity and reliability as well, the coefficient alpha values range from.81 to.93 for the 15 question questionnaire, and.74 to.92 for the 9 question short form. I purpose to use the standard 15 questions, which has a higher degree of significance. In addition to these two instruments, the proposed study intends to add two questions; one for gender, and the other for education attainment level.

I have contacted researchers who have used both instruments, to access the usability and their outcomes.

I have accessibility to unlimited data and employee groups of the largest seasonal white-collar employer in the United States.

All questionnaires will be sent by mail with a self addressed stamped envelope for anonymity, or set up on a shared website or through a third party anonymous service provider such as Zoomerang or Surveymonkey.

Limitations, Delimitations, and Assumptions

Taken together, the foregoing suggests that the discrete factors of job satisfaction and organizational commitment can be measured, at least in a general fashion, provided that it is recognized that these factors are just part of the wider continuum of human resource issues that may influence an individual contingent worker's decision to leave a particular job, or how satisfied that individual is with an existing position. Therefore, one of the basic limitations of the proposed study will be its inability to generalize these findings to other workplace settings, and the findings will be delimited to measures of job satisfaction and organizational commitment for white-collar seasonal contingent workers, who work in a (99%) wholly seasonal workforce. It will also be assumed that the survey respondents will answer the questions truthfuly and accurately, and that researcher bias will not unduly affect the interpolation of the results.

Chapter Summary

This chapter presented a statement of the problem to be considered by the proposed study as well as its purpose, importance and rationale. A description of the theoretical framework that will guide the proposed study was followed by the research questions to be answered, and the proposed study's hypotheses and corresponding null hypotheses. A discussion of the proposed study's significance was followed by a description of the research design to be used, and an assessment of the proposed study's limitations, delimitations and assumptions concluded the chapter. A review of the relevant peer-reviewed and scholarly literature is presented in chapter two below.

Chapter Two:

Literature Review

Starting in the 1840's and emerging out of the rubble from the Civil War (1865), the United States became the fastest growing, most powerful industrial machine (Canevale, 2008). As this industrial machine started to grow, so did the mass-produced products (factories) that fueled this growth, in the States and in foreign markets. At the end of the 1840's, the average American Mill worker, worked 11.4 hours a day (Appleby, J; Binkley, a and McPherson, J. 1998). This change from the small family farm or business to factory work, forced the workforce to work long hours and five to six days a week. These workers were called "normal" or "standard" workers, whose work arrangement was (a) was performed full-time, (b) would continue indefinitely, and - was performed at the "employer's" place of business under the employer's supervision (Kalleberg, 2000).

With unfair and oppressive work arrangements, government and the people through unionization enacted laws to protect and improve the lives of these "standard" workers (Appleby, J; Binkley, a and McPherson, J. 1998). The Unionized workforce had a revolutionary change in the 1980's (Freedman, 1988), in which; competition, deregulation, and non-union companies forced the Unions to become flexible and adaptive in their working arrangements of the "standard" worker. Sverke, (2004) contends that there exists substantial evidence to suggest that within industrialized economies, "contingent" workers are significantly less likely to be under the scope of union representation than employees under more traditional "standard" working arrangements. And unions continue to oppose the growth of the "contingent" worker, who has less influence and less critical power over an organization. In the case of "contingent" workers, where there is an absence of industrially or occupationally based industrial relations systems, the task of organizing at the "workplace" level offer serious challenges for unions to form (Gallagher, 2202).

With the decline of the "standard" worker, a new worker emerged, the "contingent" worker (Freedman, 1985). According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (2005), nearly 4% of the workforce was composed of the "contingent" worker. This new worker is still unknown. The "contingent" worker has just started to be researched, analyzed, and compared to the "standard" worker (Belous, 1989; Connelly, and Gallagher, 2004; Baker and Christensen, 1988; Gallagher and Sverke 2005; Hipple, 2001; Hughes and Palmer, 2007; Negyesi and Szabl, 2005 et al.).

Freedman (1985) coined the phrase "Contingent worker," which means any non-conventional worker: temporary, seasonal, day laborer, or part-time worker. There are now many additional sub-categories of "contingent" workers: at will, contract, limited contract, and flex, (Connelly, & Gallagher, 2004 et al.). Polvika and Nardone (1989) defined "contingent" work as "any job in or one in which an individual does not have an explicit or implicit contract for long-term employment or one in which the minimum hours worked can vary in a nonsystematic manner."

Contingent" work is not homogenous; there are four defined groups (Connelly, & Gallagher 2004). The first group is the temporary laborer, who is hired through a third party (e.g. Manpower & Accutemps). The second worker group is the "contract," or "independent contractor." These individuals work as a self-employed fixed term, or fixed project worker. The third area is similar to the first group, however this temporary worker is hired through "direct-hired" or "in-house." The organization has a temporary need, yet can have more control and less expense if hired directly, instead of through a temporary agency. And finally, the fourth, group is the seasonal worker. This group can be hired through an agency or as a "direct-hire." This final group is very large and very diverse: from the under 18-year-old age group who works primarily during the summer and holidays, to the white collar, over 50-year-old age group, seasonal tax professionals at H&R Block (the largest employer of seasonal white collar workers in the United States). In addition, many foreign countries have additional laws regarding "contingent" workers (e.g. Sweden).

Gallagher and Sverke (2005) redefined the "contingent" workers into three categories and three "alternative working arrangements." The three categories are similar to Gallagher's earlier work with Connelly (2004): (1) Temporary-help firm workers: workers hired on by a third party for a fixed time frame, (2) in-house temporaries: workers hired directly by the organization for a fixed time frame, and to pre-screen potential future "standard" workers (3) Independent contractors: self-employed workers who are contracted for a specific amount of time, or for a specific job function. Also Gallagher and Sverke (2005) describe three "alternative arrangements": (1) Outsourced work: contracted work that used to be performed by the organization, (2) Subcontracted work: work is transferred to another organization that performs the work, (3) Consultant firm: a specific job is contracted to a professional consulting firm.

Freedman (1985) director of the Human Resource Program Group at the National Conference Board suggested that the emergence of the "contingent" worker although due primarily to the changing economy, may be just a temporary workforce arrangement. As time and economic challenges change, the decline of the "contingent" worker and the increase of the "standard" worker may come to fruition again. The economic volatility of the new global economy may for a short time change the working arrangements, while the Unions look on, yet this too may be a temporary arrangement. Parker (1993) states that "contingent" workers may not be totally influenced by the economy, they may in fact be more influenced by a life-style change. "Contingent" work arrangements may better suit their flexible changing lives. However, Barker and Christensen (1998) believe that most workers place a high premium on job tenure and occupational growth, yet "contingent" workers have tenuous attachments to their employers.

By the early 1990's one third of the American workforce was made up of "contingent" workers (Belous, 1993). That data was not quantitatively significant. The United States did not start counting "contingent" workers until 1995. In 2005, the Bureau of Labor Statistic's data only showed 5.7 million workers, or 4% of the total workforce as "contingent" workers. The U.S. collected data for their initial survey through a supplement to the Current Population Survey (CPS). The data showed that the "contingent" worker was more likely to be female, black, young, and enrolled in school, with more than 10% being teachers (Polivka, 1996). In addition 8.8 to 10.6 of "contingent" workers are multiple job holders (Bureau of Labor and Statistics 1999) which also may have challenged the validity of the survey.

The conference board is a not-for-profit organization. It works as a global independent membership organization for the public interest. They conduct research, convene conferences and forecast trends and analyze data on changing workplace. With the baby boomers coming to retirement age, America may find its self loosing an educated workforce that they can not replace (the Conference Board, 2007 p.12). Companies may need to use a flexible older workforce to continue business as usual.

There is still a stigma in America that a "contingent" job is not a "Real Job" (Henson, 1996), which may also have affected the validity of the data from the (CPS). Polivka (1996) also stated "contingent work and bad jobs are synonymous to some." The "contingent" laborer is still on the fringe, and receives little benefits, such as; vacation, health benefits, and pension plans (Henson, 1996). Henson questions what kind of career paths are there for these workers?

Corporate downsizing and cost management has forced American organizations to look for alternative ways to staff their companies. In 1998, the largest U.S. employer was Manpower, a temporary agency. Advocates for "contingent" workers stress the value of; increased staff flexibility, cuts in direct labor costs, as well as reducing or eliminating benefit costs (Baker, and Christensen, 1998). Another financial advantage to an organization is to take labor cost from a "fixed cost" and make it a "variable cost," (Messmer, 1994). As more reliance on "contract," "outsourced" workers continue, management labor will also be reduced (Gallagher & Sverke, 2005). Cappelli (1999) suggested that this new movement toward more "contingent" workers is in fact similar to the beginnings of the Industrial revolution where workers performed specific jobs for a specific time and price. Reilly (1998), contends that organizations are using more "contingent" workers with fixed term contracts to become more flexible in the global workplace. The "contingent" workforce allows organizations to add more employees or decrease employees quickly, easily and efficiently to match the needs of a fluctuating global demand. However, with most of the literature on "contingent" workers, there are differing views; Kim and Feldman (2000), stated that many workers are choosing or preferring a short-term employment arrangement. Many workers are coming into the workforce and exiting the workforce, and "contingent" working arrangements suits their needs. Bauer and Truxillo (2000), have another theory why there is an emergency of "contingent" workers in the workplace. The choice to be a "contingent" worker, may not be a choice at all, it may be an "involuntary choice," where they may be between jobs, and must take a "contingent" job to hold them over until they find the in-field or position job that they hope to attain.

The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (2001) measures the level of productivity as it affects the world economy. With the emergence of "contingent" workers, the OECD, may need to change their way of gathering data. Their manual has a guide for measuring productivity, and then they make recommendations on how changes can improve constructs internationally. One of the major functions of this organization is to measure hours worked by industry. There are specific challenges to the validity of this data due to the two main sources of statistics; enterprise or industry data and household surveys, which include the self-employed. The data shows that there has been a significant increase of labor to output throughout the 1990's and trending the same as this decade began. The hours of labor to output went from a (3.7) from 1990 to 1994, to an increase of 6.9 from 1994 to 2000. However, the increase may be due to the way in which the hours of input are calculated. In the past, the OECD counted each employee, yet due to the increase of the "contingent" workers internationally as well as in the United States, the OECD has changed their measuring system to "hours actually worked," in stead of pure head count (Schreyer, 2001).