Fig 1 - uploaded by Elissa El Khawli
Content may be subject to copyright.
Timeline of data collection and COVID-19 events. Source. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2021). Note. We defined the shock trajectory of job insecurity between Waves 1 and 3. Around Wave 3, the coronavirus stimulus bill was signed in Washington, and we therefore defined Wave 3 as a turning point to the adjustment trajectory. Although Wave 5 is also in the adjustment trajectory, it was measured approximately 2 months after Wave 4, and therefore is a follow-up survey. Dates given for the waves refer to the date on which said survey was launched.

Timeline of data collection and COVID-19 events. Source. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2021). Note. We defined the shock trajectory of job insecurity between Waves 1 and 3. Around Wave 3, the coronavirus stimulus bill was signed in Washington, and we therefore defined Wave 3 as a turning point to the adjustment trajectory. Although Wave 5 is also in the adjustment trajectory, it was measured approximately 2 months after Wave 4, and therefore is a follow-up survey. Dates given for the waves refer to the date on which said survey was launched.

Source publication
Article
Full-text available
Crises like the COVID-19 pandemic can trigger concerns about loss of employment and changes in work conditions, and thereby increase job insecurity. However, little is known about how perceived job insecurity subsequently unfolds over time and how individual differences in habitual coping moderate such a trajectory. Using longitudinal data from 899...

Contexts in source publication

Context 1
... recruited US-based adults on MTurk for a five-wave longitudinal study, beginning on the eve the WHO declared COVID-19 a pandemic (March 10, 2020; see Fig. 1 for information on interval and timing of the waves). In Wave 1, we recruited 1056 participants over a few days, who were invited to subsequent waves. Given that we were interested in studying changes in job insecurity over time, participants were considered eligible only if they were involved in some form of paid work in at least one ...
Context 2
... for each wave, and we constrained the matching second and third items to be equal across waves. To account for the period before the coronavirus stimulus bill was signed in Washington and the period after, we estimated a piece-wise latent growth trajectory (Flora, 2008). As such, we specified the turning point at the third wave of the study (see Fig. 1). This approach allowed us to estimate and test the relationships between the intercept, which reflects the initial levels of job insecurity at Wave 1 of the study, and two slopes (for each of the shock and adjustment phases of the pandemic, respectively). We accounted for the unequal time interval between slopes by fixing the factor ...
Context 3
... estimate and test the relationships between the intercept, which reflects the initial levels of job insecurity at Wave 1 of the study, and two slopes (for each of the shock and adjustment phases of the pandemic, respectively). We accounted for the unequal time interval between slopes by fixing the factor loadings to the week of measurement (see Fig. 1). For the first slope of the piecewise trajectory, we fixed the loadings for T1, T2, and T3 at 0 and 1.5, and 2.5 respectively. Given that this slope represents the shock phase, T4 and T5 were fixed at the same loading as T3. For the second slope, we fixed the loadings from T1 to T3 to 0, and the loadings of T4 and T5 to 2 and 11.5, ...
Context 4
... capture a pre-pandemic baseline measure of job insecurity, and conclusions about transition from pre-to post-pandemic job insecurity cannot be made ( Bliese et al., 2017). Nevertheless, although layoffs in March 2020 were 2.4 times higher than in March 2019, it was nothing compared to the difference between April 2019 and 2020 (24.42 times; see Fig. 1). Therefore, we expect that people's experience of stress was at its peak between March and April, and we can see this transition in the data as evidenced by the increase in job insecurity. We encourage researchers to use data from large databanks as these may have repeated-measures before, during (and after) COVID-19. A second ...

Similar publications

Article
Full-text available
COVID-19 pandemic crisis has brought extraordinary changes to almost all human activities. This unfamiliar situation has affected, among others, the working conditions, under which employees should keep doing their job while protecting themselves and preventing the coronavirus from spreading. As a result, working from home has been considered as a...

Citations

Article
Full-text available
Purpose Following the COVID-19 pandemic, the issues related to job insecurity became even more prominent than before. This paper sets out to identify the determinants of job insecurity in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic among Romanian workers, a topic than was scarcely addressed in previous studies. Design/methodology/approach Based on a representative sample at the national level ( N = 744), the authors performed a multilinear regression analysis that pinpoints the factors predicting job insecurity. Findings This study findings indicate that high-skilled workers employed on permanent arrangements, having higher workloads, who had received organizational support, and managed to harmonize work demands with family responsibilities experience the lowest levels of job insecurity. In this study, teleworking does not influence the level of job insecurity. Gender (being male), working in the public sector and approving the political management of the COVID-19 pandemic also count in securing the feelings employees have about their job. Originality/value Besides filling a geographical gap in the literature, another innovative contribution of the paper is the emphasis on the importance for the employees of how public authorities manage the public health crisis. Also, this study explores the workload as a factor of job insecurity which was unaddressed previously. Implications for research and practice are emphasized.