Employment Type, Training, and Work Commitment: A Review

Research Objectives

This study is guided by three core objectives:

Defining Employment Types and Their Importance

1. To explore whether types of employment make a difference in terms of work commitment.

2. To investigate factors influencing employee work commitment.

3. To identify suggestions for enhancing employee work commitment.

There is no federal law that specifies the number of hours an employee must work to be considered full-time. It is at the sole discretion of the individual employer to make that determination. An employer can specify a certain number of hours per day and/or per week. If wages or benefits are involved, however, the employer is required to clearly state in writing—for example, in an employee handbook—the different requirements for full-time versus part-time employment (North Carolina Department of Labor). Still, employers can structure full- and part-time work in any fashion they choose. Employees can agree to the terms and accept employment, or seek other options if they do not like the terms. In today's global economy, in which employers are looking to cut costs and jobs are not nearly as plentiful as they were in more prosperous times, employees may be willing—perhaps even compelled—to make compromises with respect to what they consider an ideal work situation. As pointed out by Hotchkiss (2004, p. 1), "For some workers, part-time jobs, or jobs with flexible hours, are the difference between being out of the labor market and being gainfully employed."

There can be some variation among types of part-time jobs. Some are permanent, meaning employees can expect to remain in their positions for a long time. With these types of part-time jobs, employees usually enjoy a regular schedule with predictable hours. When these positions are voluntary—meaning that employees choose to work part-time—job satisfaction often follows. Casual part-time employment is not permanent and may be short-term. In some instances, workers are hired seasonally, such as by a department store during the Christmas period. In other instances, employees may seek casual part-time employment themselves. This could be an individual who takes a part-time holiday job to make extra money for gifts, or one who takes advantage of seasonal employment to earn extra cash, perhaps to pay bills or save for a large purchase. College students often take casual employment during academic breaks, such as summer hiatus.

Part-time employment has steadily increased in most industrialized countries over recent decades, a trend that has been particularly strong in both the Netherlands and Australia (McDonald, Bradley & Brown 2009, p. 143). While statistics exist on the numbers of part-time versus full-time jobs available, there is comparatively little information on the quality of part-time work. The literature emphasizes part-time work as a means—particularly for women—to balance career and home responsibilities. Hotchkiss and others have found that part-time employment has increased among workers with disabilities. In many cases, the part-time status is voluntary: people with disabilities may work part-time because it accommodates their needs (for example, they tire easily) or because they do not want to earn too much money and thus jeopardize their disability benefits (Hotchkiss 2004, p. 4).

From the employers' standpoint, there are advantages to both full- and part-time employees. Full-time employees may be perceived as more committed to their jobs, an issue discussed further in this paper. Full-time employees are also on the job with greater availability and can offer a continuity that is not always feasible when a worker is physically on the premises only during limited business hours.

Organizational commitment is a concept that has consistently attracted attention from both business practitioners and organizational scientists. It is perceived as a predictor of not only employee satisfaction and retention but also of organizational success. Organizational commitment can be defined as the psychological and emotional attachment individuals feel toward an organization (Felfe et al., 2007). It is an obliging force that drives behavior among employees to pursue an organization's goals and values.

Work Commitment and Its Organizational Significance

One of the most widely accepted models of commitment was proposed by Allen and Meyer (1998), who argue that commitment consists of three main components: affective, continuance, and normative commitment. Affective commitment is defined as the emotional attachment or sense of identification and involvement that individuals feel toward an organization (Allen & Meyer, 1998). Employees who demonstrate a high degree of affective commitment typically participate in and remain with a company because of their positive feelings toward it. Continuance commitment relates to the costs of leaving a company as recognized by employees (Allen & Meyer, 1998). When employees recognize that the costs of leaving—both economic (such as pension accumulation) and social (such as friendships with colleagues)—are high, they continue to commit to the organization. Finally, normative commitment refers to employees' sense of obligation to a company (Allen & Meyer, 1998). This type of commitment is associated with moral duty, reflecting the belief that one ought to remain with an organization.

Although Allen and Meyer's model focuses primarily on employees' willingness to remain with an organization, it is highly significant because employee retention plays an important role in determining organizational success. According to Jain et al. (2009), organizational commitment is associated with employee satisfaction and retention, which are major challenges for organizations. Firms must typically deal with shortages of experienced employees who may have left for various reasons, including dissatisfaction. This situation negatively affects organizational stability and impedes operational improvement. A further study by Felfe et al. (2007) indicates that employees with a high level of organizational involvement tend to express greater job satisfaction and engage more actively with organizational tasks than those with lower levels of involvement. This commitment behavior ultimately yields competitive advantage. Thus, organizational commitment is a significant variable in organizational achievement.

There is a continuing debate about the perceived lack of commitment among temporary or part-time workers. John and Natalie (1997) conducted a survey examining factors that caused dissatisfaction among temporary employees, which can severely impact their level of commitment toward both assigned tasks and the organization. In their study, temporary workers felt that managers did not listen to them, did not encourage them to achieve their tasks, and failed to build trust. Similarly, research by Cuyper et al. (2010) found lower involvement and commitment among temporary employees compared with permanent ones. As Hyde (2008) points out, "part-time employment has traditionally been associated with low-skilled, poorly paid occupations." It is not surprising, then, that workers in these positions may not experience the same level of organizational commitment as their better-paid and more respected colleagues.

Soltani and Wilkinson (2009) empirically investigated whether temporary employees in the hotel industry are treated as a resource or as a cost, and found that they are generally considered a cost rather than an asset. Flexible workforces are significantly disadvantaged by fewer opportunities for training and career development. Nelen and Grip (2008) also highlight that human capital investment is typically provided to full-time workers rather than part-time staff due to lower expected returns on investment. Reduced training not only limits workers' skill development—a key driver of work engagement—but also affects their attitude toward the organization. These may be among the reasons why temporary workers often exhibit lower organizational commitment.

Nevertheless, Cuyper et al. (2011) contend that, after reviewing previous studies on temporary employment, temporary employees can display higher levels of organizational commitment than permanent workers and can excel at their jobs. Temporary workers can be divided into two groups: voluntary and involuntary. Both groups can demonstrate high levels of organizational commitment and often perform better than permanent workers—involuntary workers because they expect future permanent employment, and voluntary workers because they seek to build employability or gain job experience. This finding was later supported by Kinnunen et al. (2011), whose empirical study found that voluntary temporary workers showed higher motivation and task engagement than permanent workers, and that job exhaustion—a key indicator of commitment levels—was lower among temporary workers than among full-time employees.