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.

The need for high performance to ensure future employability, compounded by fears of job insecurity, also affected many CKW personal lives. Anxieties and frustrations arising from not knowing if contracts would be extended or simply not knowing if they would secure another contract toward the end of a term were difficult. Although many CKWs understood that managers did not always control the funding and workload issues, they did expect due diligence around budget and project planning as well as open and honest communication about how long their employment would last.

One unanticipated finding is that contingent IT knowledge workers had fewer expectations of their employers compared to the other CKWs. Some were concerned about lack of benefits and security, and opportunities to develop their skills, but were generally well-paid and able to work on interesting projects. Additionally, IT CKWs viewed their relationship with the employer as an equitable one. They liked the organizations, their work within them, and the way they were treated. They attributed their positive experiences to being in a team-based, results-oriented culture; personal and professional standards and ethics drove them to contribute their best efforts.

In contrast, the experiences of seasonal CKWs were quite different, especially for the individuals who accepted contingent work for entry-level positions before qualifying for ongoing positions. The work was cyclical, with demand for services peaking during the summer. Full-time, full-year permanent employment rarely became available for seasonal CKWs and restrictions were placed on hiring. Seasonal CKWs were at even more of a particular disadvantage as they were without access to training and development opportunities during the off-season, yet such training is often required to obtain subsequent opportunities. According to this group, their managers were hesitant to invest in training because of the cost and the fact that there would be no long-term pay off. These circumstances block the career track for seasonal CKWs who expect to move into permanent jobs within two or three years. Several of the seasonal CKWs felt stuck in contingent positions for many years, in some cases, for up to 10 to 15 years, and resentment built as the goal of obtaining secure employment became less accessible. Although seasonal CKWs remained committed to the organization's mandate, and to their immediate work group, their faith in the organization itself was diminishing and beginning to affect their attitudes, commitment, and willingness to move to different postings, or to give up their own time for training.

The seasonal CKW group were also more highly dependent on their employer for entry into and progression within their careers. They expected more from the relationship than the employer seemed willing or able to provide because of a combination of financial and demographic circumstances. The seasonal CKWs believed that they had played by the rules as set out, but the employer had not provided expected job security, career development, or more rewarding work. The employment relationship was not perceived as equitable or balanced. One seasonal CKW participant captured this metaphorically: "It's kind of like they don't want to enter into a marriage, but living together is okay."

Manager Perceptions

There are some interesting contrasts between the managers and CKWs when considering the advantages, disadvantages, and challenges of the contingent relationship. The general positive findings for managers include:

1. They receive a good return on their investment, even though they may have to pay a premium for CKWs;

2. They believe that their CKWs are highly skilled, motivated, and committed;

3. CKWs are crucial to completing projects on time;

4. CKWs are useful in starting new ventures; and

5. CKWs fill the gaps in employment during periods of high demand, or within cyclical industries.

Managers agreed with the CKWs that contingent employment status likely did affect opportunities for career development. The lack of training and development was related to management's unwillingness to make longer-term investments, especially if such investments could be transferred outside of the firm. Additionally, duration of employment (opportunity for return on investment) was an important consideration for managers:

If someone is a seasonal [occupation], they likely wouldn't get

training not related to that summer work, although this varies. You

would look to your permanent staff first for career development

training. If I were to hire one-year term positions, the same logic

could apply. You will not invest a lot of training into the

position if they are shorter-term.

Employers expect that CKWs should be responsible for their own career planning and development.

Some managers worried about the time it takes for CKWs to get up to speed in terms of specific job training, and to what extent they should receive orientation to the firm and culture. Some of the managers realized that CKWs need to establish relationships and get used to the organization culture and work expectations to be productive, but such managers were in the minority.

Compared to the CKWs, managers were less inclined to think that fewer opportunities exist for career management and promotion. Policies in some firms explicitly favor internal staff, but half of the managers did not think that CKWs are at a major disadvantage. In their view, the individual's experience, skills, abilities, and personal circumstances are overriding factors in gaining access to full-time or higher-level positions.

In general, although managers believe they benefit from hiring CKWs, there are also some costs, such as paying premiums to acquire the right expertise. Loss of knowledge or expertise as CKWs left, concerns about the lack of return on investment for training, and declining commitment or focus as CKWs started searching for new work are also costly. Furthermore, at the organizational level, guidance and direction about how to manage CKWs within a mixed workforce are lacking. This is particularly salient in light of the recent court cases addressing co-employment. (1) When should a temporary employee be classified as permanent because of the longevity of an assignment or the frequency of return assignments? Managers have some discomfort about the ambiguity of contingent employment, particularly around the proper classification of temporary workers (Houston Business Journal, 2003), and managing the expectations of those hoping for more permanent work.

Another problem is resentment on the part of regular employees when they sense that CKWs are being paid more or being assigned to the better projects. Managers suggested that this is partly because of misinformation about compensation or a lack of understanding about why CKWs are being brought in to do certain work. Communicating information about organizational policies is an important aspect of managing perceptions about CKWs. Concomitantly, some employers experienced problems related to declining motivation and loss of CKWs as their termination date approached, or expected permanent appointments failed to materialize. The result was often a loss of continuity, loss in quality, or difficulty in implementing process improvements.

In some cases, though, it was the employer's preference not to foster a high level of organizational commitment or career development with CKWs. Some were reluctant to raise expectations; others wished to test the dedication of CKWs as potential longer-term employees without any implicit expectations.

Discussion and Implications

For employers who consistently hire CKWs, there are some practical lessons:

1. These organizations need to include the use and management of CKWs in their overall HR strategy. Policies and guidelines for those who manage CKWs should be clearly stated. Ensuring that there are policies in place to guide managers assists organizations not only to avoid potential co-employment legal challenges, but also to improve clarity in expectations between the managers and CKWs.

2. CKWs are often treated differently because of their status. Regular staff may resent CKWs' higher pay or better projects. Because of these factors, there is a clear distinction between contingent and regular employees; but the longer the tenure of CKWs, and the more closely they work with regular staff, CKWs become more socialized to organizational values and behaviors. To achieve the best results, the benefits of CKWs must be clearly communicated to anyone affected by them.

3. The extent to which CKWs are included and welcomed rather than resented by organization members depends on the reasons why they are retained. If CKWs are seen as making things easier by providing relief, dealing with peak demands, or providing needed skills, they are more likely to be welcomed and viewed positively. Again, managers can make a difference by clearly communicating with all staff as to the benefits of having CKWs as part of the team.

4. Seasonal CKWs experience more of a sense of injustice and a loss of trust because of uncertainty. Although it is difficult for an employer to know whether or not seasonal CKWs will be rehired, it is important to address that point with the CKWs. If possible, contributing to any type of off-season training for CKWs would build a greater sense of engagement and loyalty, thus making it easier to recruit and hire these individuals for future seasons of work. It should be to the employer's advantage to be able to carry over organizational knowledge from one season to the next.

Concluding Comments

A key practical lesson for organizations drawn from this study is the need to develop HR strategies that include CKWs, with greater attention devoted to their management. Managers should play an active role in creating environments in which flexible employment strategies are created and communicated to both continuing and contingent workers. Expectations need to be managed, as does the mix of workers in different types of employment contracts. As employers compete to attract, retain, and engage employees (Frank, et al., 2004), strategies specific to skilled CKWs should assist them in becoming employers of choice.

Appendix A. Sample Interview Questions

For Contingent Employees:

1. How did being employed on a contingent basis affect your ability to control and manage a career?

2. What were the positive and negative effects on both you and the organizations that hired you?

3. What role did organization culture play in mitigating the effects of contingent employment?

For Managers:

1. What are the key challenges in managing contingent knowledge workers?

2. What are the positive and negative effects on workers and the organization?

3. What role did organization culture play in mitigating the effects of contingent employment?

REFERENCES

Allan P (2002). "The Contingent Workforce: Challenges and New Directions," American Business Review, 20(2): 103-110.

Barker K & Christensen K (1998). "Controversies and Challenges Raised by Contingent Work Arrangements," in K. Barker and K. Christensen (Eds.), Contingent Work: American Employment Relations, Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 1-20.

Beard KM & Edwards J R (1995). "Employees at Risk: Contingent Work and the Psychological Experience of Contingent Workers," in CL Cooper & D M Rousseau (Eds.), Trends in Organizational Behaviour, Vol.2, Chichester, UK: John Wiley and Sons, 109-126.

Biggs D (2006) "The Decline of the Temporary Worker: A Regional Perspective," Local Economy 21(3): 249-263.

Bureau of Labor Statistics (2005). "Table 10. Employed contingent workers by their preference for contingent or noncontingent employment," www.bls.gov/news.release/ conemp.t10.htm.

Chambel, MJ & Castanheira F (2006). "Different Temporary Work Status, Different Behaviors in Organization," Journal of Business and Psychology, 20(3): 351-267.

Connelly CE & Gallagher DG (2004). "Emerging Trends in Contingent Work Research," Journal of Management, 30(6) (Nov.): 959-983.

David J (2005). "The Unexpected Employee and Organizational Costs of Skilled Contingent Workers," Human Resource Planning, 28(2): 32-41.

Feldman DC (1995). "Managing Part-Time and Temporary Employment Relationships: Individual Needs and Organizational Demands," in M London (Ed.), Employees, Careers and Job Creation: Developing Growth-Oriented Human Resource Strategies and Programs, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Frank FD, Finnegan RP, & Taylor CR (2004). "The Race for Talent: Retaining and Engaging Workers in the 21st Century," Human Resource Planning, 27(3): 12-26.

Glaser BG & Strauss AL (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory, New York: Aldine.

Ho VT, Ang S & Straub D (2003). "When Subordinates Become IT Contractors: Persistent Managerial Expectations in IT Outsourcing," Information Systems Research, 14: 66-86.

Houston Business Journal (2003). "Firms Hiring Temporary Workers Face Co-Employment Challenges," Houston.bizjournals.com.

Krahn H (1995). "Non-Standard Work on the Rise," Perspectives on Labour and Income, 7(4) (Winter): 35-42.

Morris MDS & Vekker A (2001). "An Alternative Look at Temporary Workers, Their Choices, and the Growth in Temporary Employment," Journal of Labor Research, 22(2): 373-390.

Owens DM (2006). "Making Seasonal Employees Work," HR Magazine, 51(4): 76-82.

Payette S (1998). "Contingent Work: Trends, Issues and Challenges For Labour," Conference Board of Canada, 243-298.

Rousseau DM (1990). "New-Hire Perceptions of Their Own and Their Employers' Obligations: A Study of Psychological Contracts," Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 11(15) (Sept.): 389-400.

Rousseau DM (1995). Psychological Contracts in Organizations: Understanding Written and Unwritten Agreements, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Vosko LF, Zukewich N, & Cranford C (2003). "Precarious Jobs: A New Typology of Employment," Perspectives, Statistics Canada cat no 75-001-XIE.

NOTES

(1.) See, e.g., Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corp., 173 F.3d 713 (9th Cir. 1999) (Microsoft III).

Lindsay Redpath, Deborah Hurst, Kay Devine, Centre for Innovative Management, Athabasca University, St. Albert, Alberta, Canada

Lindsay Redpath, Ph.D., is the executive director of Athabasca University's Centre for Innovative Management. Lindsay played a lead role in the creation of the world's first online executive MBA, which was launched by Athabasca University in 1994. She continues to promote innovation in online management education. Her research interests include the changing nature of work and employment, organizational change and learning, and managing across cultures. Her Ph.D. research examined the causes and consequences of underemployment amongst university graduates. Lindsay serves as chair of the Graduate Management Programs Council and is a member of the Graduate Studies Board at Athabasca University. She is also an elected board member of the Canadian Federation of Business School Deans.

Deborah Hurst is an associate professor of organizational behaviour and Academic Area Manager, Work and Organization Studies at the Centre for Innovative Management, Athabasca University graduate programs. Previous to her work with AU-CIM, she was a faculty member at the School of Business, Acadia University. Deborah obtained her B.A. from the University of Toronto, and her M.A. and Ph.D. from the University of Alberta. During her graduate studies she worked for four years with the Alberta Public Service as an HR professional and manager. Prior to her graduate-level education, she worked for 10 years at General Motors of Canada Limited in various roles located within the departments of Transportation Analysis, Material Control, Parts Distribution, Export Operations, and Personnel. All of these private and public sector organizational experiences inform her research and teaching.

Kay Devine is an associate professor of management at the centre for Innovative Management, Athabasca University graduate programs. Prior to her move to AU, she was a faculty member and associate dean for the School of Business, University of Alberta. She has a Ph.D. in human resource management/industrial relations from the University of Washington, and a M.Ed. in college student personnel administration from Colorado State University. Her B.S. degree from Oregon State is in political science/psychology. Kay has worked and consulted with organizations in the private and public sectors, as well as not-for-profit and labor unions. She has published in numerous journals and currently serves as an associate editor for the Academy of Management Perspectives. EXHIBIT 1 Number of Interview Respondents by Organizational Sector, Size, and Personal Demographics (n = 70)

Contingent

Knowledge

Organizational Workers Managers Organizational Sector (a) Size Interviewed Interviewed 1. Primary Goods 223 5 5 2. Telecommunications 2,397 8 1 3. Financial Services 4,300 9 8 4. Public Sector/Health 1,083 10 5 5. Public Sector/

Government 4,623 15 4

Total Interview

Respondents 47 23 Total Sample Gender 27 male 11 male

20 female 12 female Type of employment 8 seasonal 4 seasonal

39 contract 19 contract (a) The following occupational groups within these sectors participated: accountants, archaeologists, engineers, geologists, information technology specialists, quality assurance specialists, nurses, pharmacists, project managers, researchers, planners, and resource conservation officers.