Contingent knowledge worker challenges.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

The use of contingent workers has become a part of many organizations' business models, and is likely to continue. This empirical study of skilled knowledge contingent workers follows David's (2005) conceptual article, which called for an examination of skilled contingent workers. As such, it examines the advantages and disadvantages of such work arrangements in light of the employer and of the employee. Findings suggest that employment uncertainty presents difficulties for skilled contingent knowledge workers in planning and managing their careers, even when they have skills valued by employers and choose to accept term appointments. Managers clearly benefit from hiring contingent knowledge workers, but face numerous challenges in managing these types of relationships. Suggestions are provided on how to address the needs of both managers and workers.

Contingent employment has continued over the past 25 years, and although declining recently in the United States and the United Kingdom (Biggs, 2006; Morris & Vekker, 2001), has remained constant in Canada (Allan, 2002; Connelly & Gallagher, 2004). More importantly, the use of contingent workers has become a fundamental part of the business model in some organizations, as it allows employers to expand and contract their workforce in response to workflow variations (Owens, 2006). Some argue that this deviates from the traditional employment model (Barker & Christensen, 1998), but contingent work arrangements are expected to continue. This article empirically explores how contingent work affects highly skilled contingent knowledge workers (CKWs) and their employers.

Background Literature

Contingent, or nonstandard, employment is a category of the workforce that includes those who do not have "explicit (i.e., formal, clearly defined and communicated agreements) or implicit (i.e., an understanding between employees and employers but not formalized through a written agreement) contracts to stay with an organization for an indefinite period of time" (David, 2005). In the United States, organizations tend not to use employment contracts or term full-time employment as "permanent" because technically employment is considered "at will"--the most often used designation is "regular employee." Using the Bureau of Labor Statistic's broadest measure of contingency, there were 5.7 million contingent employees in the United States, or about 4 percent of the total employment population in 2005. Comparatively, in the United Kingdom, 7 percent of all workers were considered to be contingent employees; in Canada, the number has fluctuated around 11 percent (Vosko, et al., 2003). Although contingent employees constitute a minor portion of the employed population, their contributions are critical to various companies (David, 2005; Payette, 1998).

Little is known about CKWs. David's (2005) article offers a conceptual model of the use of skilled contingent workers and their impact on regular employees and their organizations, but stops short of testing the model with data. The goal of this article is to build on David's (2005) work by presenting the findings of an empirical study involving CKWs and their managers.

Research Questions

Generally, contingent work is associated with employment relationships that are transactional (Rousseau, 1990, 1995), thus limiting employee engagement to the firm for which they are working. They provide their skills for a monetary reward, but do not become attached to the organization because their tenure is temporary. This may produce an "us and them" mentality (Chambel & Castanheira, 2005), which, for employers, may thwart their efforts to retain and engage the well-performing CKWs. Likewise for the CKWs, their level of engagement may be limited, thus resulting in less discretionary effort provided to a position (Frank, et al., 2004). The first question of the study was to look at whether or not a lack of engagement can be overcome.

The second question was to examine contingent work from the employee point of view: their concern for career and life management. CKWs typically receive no benefits or training, so how do these individuals manage their careers, for example, updating knowledge and staying current with new developments? As the relationship is transactional, the organization has no duty or commitment to such employees, but expects that the CKWs it hires will have training and current knowledge. Should the organization play a role in CKW development if it wants to maximize their engagement?

Methodology

Interviews with CKWs and their managers were conducted, thus using a qualitative methodology. The average length of each interview was 45 minutes, and all questions were open-ended. Interviews were taped for later analysis.

Sample

Participants were deliberately chosen to fit the categories of interest: CKWs and their managers. Overall, 47 CKWs and 23 managers (n = 70) in five organizations participated. In order to obtain a broad overview, two of the organizations were public sector and three were private. Exhibit 1 illustrates the sample distribution, participant demographics, and industries represented.

All CKWs were professionals, working in situations in which there was a definite term or end date to their employment, and all managers had hired or supervised CKWs. One limitation of the research is that the generalizability of the findings may be compromised because of the small sample size per industry, as well as the inclusion of only a limited number of industries. Despite this limitation, the results should help employers and employees analyze their own situations, and hopefully spawn creative thinking and problem solving within their own contexts.

Data Analysis

To avoid subjectivity, each researcher analyzed the interview data using a qualitative constant comparative method in order to determine common themes or issues (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). As such, new insights into contingent employment relationships that provide practical implications for both employers and CKWs were gained, as outlined here. CKW perceptions are presented first, followed by employer responses.

Results

Contingent Knowledge Worker Perceptions

CKWs spoke about a number of different factors when asked to assess their employment situation:

* Nature of the job;

* Volume of work;

* Pay and benefits;

* Hours of work;

* Tenure/security;

* Promotional/career development opportunities;

* Interests and skills.

Overall, the general findings indicate that CKWs think:

1. Contingent work is a rewarding experience;

2. Contingent work is not the preferred working condition. Although it is rewarding, employees would prefer work that is not contingent;

3. The opportunity to work in different organizations, industries, and projects is enjoyable;

4. They benefit from higher wages, and enjoy more varied and interesting work, with greater autonomy in choosing when and where work is completed; and

5. Their work allows them to adjust work commitments to fit with personal circumstances.

Some direct statements include "(I'm) getting a lot of experience that benefits me," and a contingent job is "... an opportunity to gain new skills in a new industry." Additionally, "I have young children and I need the flexibility."

These findings highlight the positive nature of contingent work, as well as some unfavorable aspects, with employment uncertainty and career prospects emerging as key themes. For example, some CKWs felt their skill base was stagnant: "You are brought in to do a project for which you already have the skills." Additionally, some said that although contingent employment was a fit for now, it was not a good longer-term career fit. Better employment certainty and employer commitment were of primary concern for the long term.

Many CKWs justified their employment uncertainty in the short term given the variety, development, learning, and opportunities such varied experiences provided; however, some commented on the negative impact on personal lives. The most severe effects were felt in the areas of personal career goals and objectives, personal finances, opportunities for training and development, chances for promotion, and control. Getting the experience or training to progress to the next level of proficiency was challenging. Employers, they said, were willing to invest in some training, but most of it was specific to the current job or project. Some CKWs thought that they had little ability to control or influence the length of their contracts and, as a result, perceived reduced control in other aspects of their lives (Beard & Edwards, 1995; Ho, et al., 2003). For example, a lack of control to plan financially was discovered, and many CKWs reported that their personal financial situations were negatively affected. The main problems included inability to do long-term financial planning, to enter into longer-term financial commitments (e.g., buying a car, leasing an apartment, or arranging a mortgage), or securing access to credit.

CKWs' ability to balance work and family or personal lives was also affected. Moving to follow job opportunities was a problem for those with spouses or families rooted in one place. Continually working to project deadlines and pressures to take the next available job left little opportunity for vacations, training, or time off in general. Without paid benefits and vacations, the problem became more difficult over the long run.