Job Security/Insecurity

Subjective or Objective

In research, job insecurity primarily has been conceptualized as subjective in nature. This implies that individual psychological interpretations of job insecurity vary and that these interpretations play a crucial role in individual responses to job insecurity. Objective job insecurity, alternatively, is the actual degree to which the future of one's job is uncertain. If individuals are unaware that their jobs are at risk or refuse to believe that their jobs are at risk, then they might not perceive job insecurity even if objective job insecurity exists. Indeed, the relatively weak relationship between objective and subjective job insecurity indicates that the existence of one is not a prerequisite for the existence of the other.

Cognitive or Affective

Belief that one's job will be lost is the cognitive aspect of job insecurity. In contrast, the feelings that one has about the possible job loss constitute the affective component of job insecurity. A distinction can be made between the perceived likelihood of job loss and a concern about job loss. Workers can believe that job loss is likely without feeling concerned. This lack of concern might hold true for those who are ready to leave the workforce, such as workers close to retirement age and those with other job offers. In contrast, workers can feel concerned about potential job loss even if they believe that their jobs are secure. Concern about job insecurity might outweigh belief that one's job is secure for individuals who have great financial responsibilities or those who feel that few job options are open to them.

Global or Multifaceted

Global job insecurity focuses on the potential loss of the job in its entirety. It is more commonly studied than a multifaceted approach to job insecurity, which encompasses potential loss of both components of the job as well as the entire job. There is some debate on whether loss of job components is as important as loss of the job itself. Loss of job components might not be as severe as loss of the job itself, because even when components are lost, the individual still retains organizational membership. The contrasting argument states that reactions to threatened loss of at least certain job components are substantively similar to threatened loss of the job itself.

...