A Gender-based Framework of the Experience of Job Insecurity and its Effects on Work Attitudes of Israeli Schoolteachers

Zehava Rosenblatt
Faculty of Education, University of Haifa Mt. Carmel, Haifa 31905 Phone +972-4-8344425 Fax +972-4-8240911 E-mail zehavar@construct.haifa.ac.il

Ilan Talmud
Department of Sociology, University of Haifa Mt. Carmel, Haifa 31905 Phone +972-4-8240992 Fax +972-4-8240819 E-mail talmud@soc.haifa.ac.il

Ayalla Ruvio
Faculty of Education, University of Haifa Mt. Carmel, Haifa 31905 Phone +972-4-8263334 Fax +972-4-8240911 E-mail rayalla@construct.haifa.ac.il

A Gender-based Framework of the Experience of Job Insecurity and its Effects on Work Attitudes of Israeli Schoolteachers

Abstract

Gender effects on job insecurity and other work attitudes (organizational commitment, tendency to quit, resistance to change, perceived performance and perceived organizational support) are investigated in this paper, taking Israeli schoolteachers as a case in point. Using a multi-dimensional measure of job insecurity, it was found that men and women significantly differed in their level and profile of job insecurity: Males were more insecure and emphasized financial concerns, while females expressed concerns about intrinsic facets of their jobs. Gender effects on work attitudes were above and beyond the effects of job insecurity and other demographic characteristics for most of the work attitudes studied. Moreover, the effects of job insecurity on work attitudes were different for men and women: while for females all job attitudes were adversely affected by job insecurity, for males only organizational commitment, intention to leave, and resistance to change were affected. Gender theories were used to explain the differences found in this study. Theoretical and managerial implications of the findings are discussed.

A Gender-based Framework of the Experience of Job Insecurity and its Effects on Work Attitudes of Israeli Schoolteachers

Research on the organizational outcomes of job insecurity (JI) has proliferated in the past two decades, following steadily increasing rates of downsizing and layoffs in private and public sectors alike (Herz, 1991; New York Times, 1996). In particular, the effects of JI on workers' health, work attitudes and work behavior have been widely investigated (see review in Harrtley, Jacobson, Klandermans and Van Vuuren, 1991). Generally, findings show that work attitudes and behaviors are adversely affected by JI. For example, JI was associated with decreased trust in organizations (Ashford, Lee, & Bobko, 1989), decreased organizational loyalty (Loseby, 1992), and a decrease in perceived organizational support (Rosenblatt & Ruvio, 1996; Ruvio & Rosenblatt, forthcoming). JI also affected organizational commitment, resistance to change, and the intention to leave (Ashford et al., 1989; Davy, Kinicki & Scheck, 1997; Kuhnert & Vance, 1992; Rosenblatt & Ruvio, 1996; Ruvio & Rosenblatt, forthcoming). Finally, perceived work performance (but not objective work performance) was negatively associated with JI (Rosenblatt & Ruvio, 1996; Ruvio & Rosenblatt, forthcoming). However, most if not all of these studies have looked at workers population as a whole, with no distinction between the two major sub-populations of males and females. As stated by Hartley et al. (1991), most of the studies on JI "have focused almost exclusively on male workers The pattern of full-time employment without interruption is predominantly a male pattern and, for example, it could be that males as a group react to

and cope with JI differently from women" (p. 202). The authors further assert that males have traditionally been considered as more job-secure than females. This tendency is subject to change, though, with the increasing entry rate of females into the workforce pool (News & World report, 1995). Research results regarding attitudinal differences in JI are less than conclusive. Harpaz (1990a), in his study on Israeli work values, found no gender differences in the importance attributed to JI. Similar results were reported by Scozzaro and Subich (1990). Elizur (1994), however, in his study of work values in three countries (Israel, Hungary and the Netherlands), showed that females ranked the importance of job security higher than males did. Bridges (1989) and Tolbert and Moen (1998) also detected gender differences but in the opposite direction than Elizur's: in their studies males attributed significantly higher importance to job security than females did. These seemingly contrasting results call for finer analysis and clear definition of the JI concept, in order to search for fine-grained differences, if exist, in JI experience among genders. For this end, a comprehensive conceptualization of JI is needed, encompassing, as much as possible, a broad view of this concept. We found that Greenhalgh and Rosenblatt's (1984) JI model answered this requirement. According to their theoretical framework, JI was viewed as "perceived powerlessness to maintain desired continuity in a threatened job situation" (p. 438). This definition reflects the assumption that JI is not limited to events involving loss of the whole job only, but also to events involving the loss of any specific work aspect, such as the loss of income, promotion opportunity, location, colleagues, etc. According to this theoretical framework, the subjective feeling of threat to one's job (JI) leads to adverse employee attitudes, and subsequently to decreased organizational adaptation. The model further predicts that, in addition to personality moderators, dependency factors such as occupational mobility and economic status also intervene in the relationships between the subjective experience of JI and

reactions to JI. This model has been tested using various occupational groups (Ashford et al., 1989), and its predictive and construct validity have been validated. In contrast to traditional models of JI research, where the natural study sites are characterized by real threat of job loss (e.g. Brockner, Grover & Blonder, 1988; Davy et al., 1997; Kuhnert & Vance, 1992), Greenhalgh and Rosenblatt's (1984) model can and should be tested in stable conditions, where specific, not general, sources of JI can be detected in what seems to be secure employment. For this reason, Israeli schools, which were generally considered as one of the more stable working places, were selected as a study site for the present study, and schoolteachers were used as the study population. Israeli schoolteachers as a whole enjoy a high level of JI, protected by powerful unions and benevolent work laws. In spite of recent privatization trends, most Israeli schoolteachers work under collective contracts, characterized foremost by strong protection against dismissals. Consequently, teaching as a whole is considered in Israel as a relatively guaranteed employment arrangement (Lewin, 1992). A second reason for selecting schoolteachers for this study is that, unlike other occupations, often studied in JI research, female and male teachers rarely differ in their job title descriptions, thus the school as an organization is a useful setting for examining gender models of JI. A third reason for the choice of schoolteachers is their employment heterogeneity. Some of the Israeli teachers work for kibbutzim, either as kibbutz members, who enjoy almost absolute employment security, or as kibbutz hirees, who enjoy improved working conditions and organizational climate that is assumed to contribute positively to their sense of JI. These differences should give a broader perspective on JI of Israeli teachers. One way to understand the differential experience of JI among teachers is through the theoretical foundation of occupational stress research. The most obvious stress components in the JI experience are uncertainty and ambiguity, which are further aggravated by the low social visibility characterizing this psychological state (Davy et al., 1997; Hartley et al., 1991; Jacobson, 1991). Job-insecure employees are unsure about the

continuation of their employment and havtypically no reference group to be associated with and possibly draw support from, unlike the laid-off (in massive downsizing) or the unemployed. Indeed, studies show that JI correlates with stress-related indicators such as somatization, anxiety, anger/hostility, depression, and inter-personal sensitivity (Kuhnert, Sims & Lahey, 1989; Kuhnert & Palmer, 1989; Kuhnert & Vance, 1992). Studies on stress and gender differences yield various and often inconsistent results. Martocchio and O'Leary's (1989) meta analysis of research on sex differences in occupational stress reported that sex had no relationship whatsoever (in regard to both physiological and psychological measures) with occupational stress. Similarly, no differences were found between Israeli males and females in regard to stress in work (unlike stress in life, see Etzion, 1984). In education, however, Long and Gessaroli (1989) reported that males were more stressed than females, while Calabrese and Anderson (1986) found that females were more stressed than males. In regard to coping with stress, no difference was found between male and female educators (Gmelch, 1988). Judging from these results, it would be hard to predict whether males or females are more prone to JI. It is necessary, then, to turn into more basic gender theories of work and occupations in order to get a better understanding and draw theoretical leads for a comparative study on the JI experience of the two genders. Three gender theories will be considered: macro-level patriarchy theory, theories of gendered occupations and jobs, and the theory of gendered organizations.

Patriarchy Theory. According to patriarchy theory, The school as an organization, and teaching as a profession are embedded in the gendered nature of society (Chodorov, 1978; Hartmann, 1979; 1981; Cockburn, 1986). Society is composed of "a system of interrelated social structures through which males exploit females (Walby, 1986: 52-3). In schools, males are more mobile upward in school hierarchies and enjoy higher status than females. An overwhelming proportion of top school administrative jobs are held by

men, compared to their proportion in the general teaching population (Owens, 1995: 106; Shakeshaft, 1986). Hence, males are a privileged class, experiencing more objective opportunities in the labor market, and lower costs of quitting their jobs than females. Consequently, males should experience less JI than females, and moreover, JI doesn't modify males' attitudes and conduct (Walby, 1986; Witz, 1990). This theory is consistent with Greenhalgh and Rosenblatt's (1984) JI model mentioned above. In the patriarchic society males are clearly more independent both in terms of occupational mobility and in terms of economic status. Therefore, as predicted by the JI model, their work attitudes and performance should not be affected by their JI status.

Theories of Gendered Occupations and Jobs. Another approach to gender differences includes models of occupational sex segregation and the theory of gendered occupations (e.g. Weber, 1988; Parkin, 1974; Witz, 1990). According to the main premises of this group of theories, teaching is a gendered profession. Because males monopolize or expropriate certain lucrative professions, there is a "crowning effect" of female employees to less prestigious occupations and jobs, resulting in occupation and job segregation by sex, such as in teaching. A major discriminant factor between male-dominated and female-dominated occupations is income level. Accumulated evidence show that over and above wage discrimination between sexes, occupational choice explains earning disparity: both males and females in female-dominated occupation tend to earn less than their counterparts in male-dominant occupations (Gattiker and Cohen, 1997). In "pink collar" profession, accordingly, both sexes are discontent (Hunt, 1993). In addition, females are discriminated against in both male-dominated and female-dominated occupations (Gattiker and Cohen, 1997). In terms of JI, then, females should experience less job

security in general, but in female-dominated occupations, such as teaching, males should also experience JI, at least in regard to the financial aspects of their employment.

Theory of gendered organization. The theory of gendered organization (Acker, 1990; Talmud and Izraeli, 1998) claims that even within a female dominated profession, the organization has "male" language, codes, and shared narratives which inhibit the promotion of female workers. Thereby those token males inside the organization will experience more opportunity to move internally (Lorber, 1994). The theory of gendered organization thus claim that it is precisely gender affecting work attitudes (Bem, 1981). The strong impact of gender can be illustrated in the Israeli kibbutz, where females tend to occupy the majority of educational jobs (Palgi and Adar, 1997). It has been repeatedly shown that in spite of the Kibbutz' egalitarian ideology, there is a growing polarization between the sexes in the public-political sphere: education and health committees are managed by females, while the economic domain is run by males. Gender effects has been also demonstrated by Bamberger, Admati-Dvir, & Harel (1995). In their study, conducted on Israeli employees of a unionized firm, they found that even unions did not remove the gender effect, although females in the firm studied were less exposed to earnings and promotion discrimination Although school teaching is a feminine sex-typed occupation, where the majority of employees are female, school management is clearly masculine, as stated above. Female teachers have less opportunity than male teachers to be promoted into managerial jobs such as principalship and superintendentship (the famous "glass ceiling effect"). In this sense schools are gendered organizations, where males enjoy better opportunities, thus are more job secure.

All three sets of theories lead us to infer that females in general, and female teachers in particular, should experience higher levels of JI than males. Most studies show that

females are discriminated against, suffer inferior working conditions and enjoy less jobrelated opportunities. Men, on the other hand, enjoy higher-status jobs and superior income even within what seem to be feminine profession such as teaching. It was hypothesized, then, that Hypothesis 1. There will be differences between male and female teachers in regard to the level of JI experience: females will experience higher levels of JI than males will.

However, the different employment experience of males and females within gendered occupations suggests that the classification of males and females as either job secure or job insecure is a bit too crude. In particular, the inconclusive results reported earlier in regard to males and females attitudes toward JI show that the nature of the security/insecurity experience might be different for males and females. It is necessary, then, to break the JI experience into specific facets, and possibly draw separate JI profiles for males and females. Accordingly, it was hypothesized that Hypothesis 2. The JI profiles of male and female teachers will be different: males will put more stress on financial and promotional factors, while females will put more stress on working conditions and on the content of work.

Moreover, gender is hypothesized to affect work attitudes over and beyond the effect of JI. There is ample evidence to show that work values of males and females differ. For example, in a seven-country (including Israel) study Harpaz (1990a) found that males were significantly higher than females in their ratings of the opportunity to learn and in autonomy (Harpaz, 1990a). Females rated higher values such as interpersonal relations, working conditions, convenient work hours, interesting work, and match between person and job. In another study focused on work values of Israeli workers, Harpaz (1990b) reported that males valued instrumental aspects of work more

10

than females did, and had a greater obligation to work. Females, on the othehand, had a stronger preference for social contact at work, and valued convenient work hours more than males. These results show that while males tend to emphasize extrinsic work factors, females emphasize intrinsic ones. Linking these findings to research on gender differences, it is hypothesized that the two genders differ not only in their work attitudes, and that these differences prevail over other indicators of work-attitudes differences. Five work attitudes were investigated in this study: work commitment, resistance to change, intention to leave, perceived performance and perceived organizational support. These attitudes were selected for being relevant to school framework, and being widely studied in JI literature. Based on these findings and on finding reported earlier on gender differences in work values, we hypothesize the following: Hypothesis 3. Beyond the predictive effect of JI and other relevant personal characteristics, gender will be a significant predictor of the following work attitudes: (a) organizational commitment, (b) intention to leave, (c) resistance to change, (d) perceived performance, and (e) perceived organizational support. JI effects on these work attitudes would be stronger for females than for males. Finally, systematic gender differences are expected to exist in the way JI affects work attitudes. As specified earlier, previous finding show that JI affects work attitudes adversely, while work dependency mediates these relationships between JI and work outcomes (Greenhalgh and Rosenblatt, 1984). For females, whose job dependency (in terms of mobility and economic opportunities) is higher than males', the effect of JI on work attitudes should be higher across the board. It is therefore hypothesized that Hypothesis 4. There will be differences between males and females in regard to the effects of JI on the work attitudes listed in Hypothesis 3 above: These effects will be stronger for females than for males.

11

METHOD

Sample and population The sample of the study consisted of 385 (263 females and 112 males) secondary-school teachers in the northern part of Israel. Data collection was conducted in schools during work time, and yielded 73% response rate. The background and personal characteristics of these teachers are presented in Appendix 1. In terms of working place, most of the teachers (273) in the study sample were affiliated with regular schools in cities, and the rest (112) were affiliated with schools located in kibbutzim, either as kibbutz members or as hirees of the kibbutz. Females had a higher tendency to work in kibbutzim (31.9% of the female teachers compared to 23.2% of the men). Teachers differed in their sectoral affiliation: 121 were affiliated with the private sector (21.3% of all females and 55.4% of all males), and 264 (78.7% of all females and 44.6% of all males) were affiliated with the public sector. Sector affiliation reflected contract type: all private-sector teachers worked under individual contracts, and all public-sector teachers worked under collective contracts. The mean age of the total sample was 40.3, females being slightly younger (39.1) than males. Mean seniority at school and in the teaching profession was 10.2 and 14.7 years for the total sample, respectively. For males mean seniority was 11.0 and 16.1 years, and for females 10.4 and 15.1 years, respectively. In terms of education, 32.4% of the total sample had a professional (teaching) degree acquired in higher education institutions designated as teachers colleges, 53.7% had a BA degree, and only 13.9 had MA degree or above. Females had relatively higher educational level than males (16.1% had MA degree or above compared to 9.1% among males). The demographic figures for the total sample resemble those found in other studies on teachers in the northern part of Israel (e.g., Rosenblatt & Inbal, 1998).

12

Variables and measures JI. This variable was measured by Ashford et al.s (1989) instrument, which is the operationalization of Greenhalgh and Rosenblatt's (1984) conceptualization, adopted for the population of Israeli schoolteachers (see Rosenblatt & Ruvio, 1996). The instrument included two parts: The total job sub-scale. This measure comprised of 5 items describing the loss or

of various aspects of the job as a whole, such as layoffs, cut in work hours, and undesirable changes in work schedule. The job features sub-scale. This measure comprised of 21 items describing sr

specific job features. The features included work factors borrowed from the Job Characteristics Model (Hackman & Oldham, 1980) and other lists of work characteristics, adopted to the teaching profession in a pre-test (Rosenblatt & Ruvio, 1996). Responses for each item were along a scale of 1-5, and referred to the item's importance to the respondent and to the likelihood that a negative (unwanted) change might take place in the future. The composite score of JI was determined by the following formula: JI = [mean job feature score (importance x likelihood) +

mean total job score (importance x likelihood)] The range of possible scores on each of the sub-scales was 1-25, and that of the composite JI score was 2-50. Reliability coefficients of the job features and the total job sub-scales were =.89 and =.75 respectively, and that of the composite scale was =.90.

Organizational commitment. This 9-item scale was adopted from Mowday, Steers, and Porter's (1979) conceptualization and measurement. Ashford et al. (1989), who used this

13

scale in their study on JI, reported a reliability of

=.91. In the present study, scale reliability was =.84.

Intention to leave. This 5-item scale was adopted from Walsh, Ashford, and Hill (1985). It was also used by Ashford et al. (1989), who reported a reliability of =.92. In the

current study reliability was =.84.

Resistance to change. This 7-item scale was adopted from Georgiades (1967), who used it for schoolteachers. Reliability in the present study was =.72.

Perceived performance. This 4-item scale was adopted from Brokstein (1991), who used it in a study of Israeli schoolteachers, with a reported reliability of =.78. Reliability in the current study was =.73.

Perceived organizational support. This 17-item scale was adopted from Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchison and Sowa (1986), who used it for schoolteachers, with a reported reliability of =.91. Scale reliability in the present study was =.82.

Demographic variables. The demographic variables specified above, including working place (city or kibbutz), sectoral affiliation, age, marital status, seniority (at school and in teaching), and education (degree) were measured and their association with JI and work attitudes was analyzed.

All the attitudinal scales used in this study were 1-5 Likert scales, and all reliability measurements used alpha Cronbach.

14

RESULTS

Results are reported next focusing on four topics: (a) gender differences in JI level (hypothesis 1), (b) gender differences in JI profiles (hypothesis 2), (c) gender differences in work attitudes (hypothesis 3), and (d) gender differences in the effect of JI on work attitudes (hypothesis 4).

(a) Gender Differences in JI level Results showed that the JI scores of females and males were significantly different (Table 1) either by the composite JI measure (t=-2.30, df=200, p=.02), or by the job features and the total job sub scales (t=-2.10, df=199, p=.04; t=-1.86, df=195, p=.05, respectively). Note that the average JI score of the total sample (18.05 out of 50) was relatively high, considering the stable condition of the teacher's population studied. This score reflects the multi-dimensional approach to JI in this study, where discontinuation of any work aspect is considered as affecting JI. (Table 1 about here) The JI score of males was significantly higher than that of females, both in the composite measure and in the two sub-scales. Hypothesis 1 was not supported, rather, the results are in the opposite direction. Israeli male teachers were more job insecure than female teachers. In the following section we will go a step further to describe the nature the JI experience reported by the different genders.

15

(b) JI Profiles of Males and Females The different means and SD of the total sample, as well as those of the two sub samples, for each one of the work aspects measured are presented in Table 2. Also presented are ttests for gender differences in regard to every single item in the composite JI measure. ( Table 2 about here ) The highest means for the total sample in the job features sub scale were the items pay raise (mean 10.4), autonomy in performing work (mean 10.2), and maintaining pay level (mean 10.1). The highest means in the total job sub scale were undesirable changes in work schedule (mean 10.9) and cuts in working hours (mean 10.1). If we consider the item cut in work hours as related to income loss, Israeli teachers could be characterized as mostly worried about financial aspects of the job, but also about autonomy and work schedule. Although males' JI scores were higher than females' scores almost across the board (except for the item team participation), these differences were significant for only five job aspects: maintaining pay level (t=-2.90, df=185, p=.00), pay raise (t=-2.91, df=179, p=00), significant impact (t=-2.22, df=182, p=.03), training (t=-2.02, df=175, p=.04) and cut in working hours (t=-2.69, df=178, p=.01). Israeli male teachers could be characterized by an emphasis on financial aspects of the job. In all these aspects males scored higher than females. Israeli female teachers, on the other hand (when looking vertically at Table 2), were mostly concerned about undesirable changes in work schedule (mean 10.72), and autonomy in performing work (mean 10.03). They were also concerned with pay raise (mean 9.80), maintaining pay level (mean 9.53), cut in work hours (mean 9.46) and autonomy in work design (mean 9.33). Although all these means were lower than those of the males, they reflected relative emphasis on both financial and autonomy aspects. Hypothesis 2 was mostly supported, then, in particular in regard to males.

16

At the other end of the job aspects spectrum, both males and females were least concerned with the item physical demands of the job, involuntary early retirement, and team participation. The first aspect is indeed less relevant to the work content of the Israeli teachers. The second aspect is irrelevant considering the average age of the israeli teachers (40 years), and the fact that this downsizing strategy is hardly used in Israel among teachers. The third aspect team participation reflects, perhaps, the little emphasis put in most Israeli schools on practicing team work (Sharan & Shahar, 1990).

(c) Gender Differences in Work Attitudes In order to explore the initial levels of gender differences in work attitudes, a series of ttests were run on each one of the dependent variables. Results are presented in Table 3. Females had significantly higher means in organizational commitment (t=2.05, df=180, p=.04), perceived performance (t=3.44, df=179, p=.00), and perceived organizational support (t=4.04, df=261, p=.00), but not in intention to leave, where males had significantly higher scores (t=-2.32, df=194, p=.02). In regard to resistance to change females' scores were higher than males' scores, but these differences were statistically insignificant. Generally, then, females had stronger and more positive work attitudes (excluding resistance to change) than males. Next, the differential effect of gender on work attitudes will be examined as a residual of the predictive explanatory power of JI and other personal characteristics. ( Table 3 about here ) For the purpose of detecting the net contribution of gender to work attitudes, a 2-step forced-entry regression analysis was performed. In the first step, the following independent variables were included in the regression model: (a) JI, measured in its composite form. (b) Working place (city or kibbutz). The Israeli kibbutz is presumed to represent the ultimate employment security, therefore, the intention was to investigate its added predictive power. Working place was coded as a dummy variable, with 0 and 1

17

indicating city and kibbutz, respectively. (c) Sectoral affiliation. This variable was strongly related to JI: private-sector teachers had individual contracts and did not enjoy any formal job security, while public-sector teachers worked under collective contracts that provided guaranteed employment (see Ruvio & Rosenblatt, forthcoming). Sectoral affiliation was coded as a dummy variable, with 0 and 1 indicating private and public sector, respectively. (d) Seniority in profession. This variable was preferred over seniority in school, since in Israel employment was widely guaranteed by major public employers (the government or local municipality), but not necessarily the job itself. (e) Age. In the second step gender (coded as a dummy variable, with 0 and 1 indicating males and females, respectively) was entered alone, controlling for the other independent variables listed above. Results are presented in Table 4. (Table 4 about here) Results showed that without the presence of the gender variable, overall JI was the strongest predictor, having an adverse effect on all five work attitudes. These results replicate findings in previous research (e.g., Ashford et al., 1989; Rosenblatt & Ruvio, 1996). In three work attitudes (organizational commitment, intention to leave, and perceived organizational support) JI was the first variable presented in the regression equation. Work in a kibbutz (vs. city) predicted a decrease in resistance to change, perceived performance, and perceived organizational support. These last two results are puzzling. In step with Rosenblatt & Ruvio's (1996) findings, that the JI experience of kibbutz teachers was mostly related to social and other intrinsic issues, kibbutz teachers, compared to city teachers, probably tended to report on increased efforts, while being assured of the kibbutz continuing overall support. Sectoral affiliation predicted all work attitudes except organizational commitment. Affiliation with the public-sector employees negatively predicted intention

18

to leave, and positively predicted resistance to change, perceived performance, and perceived organizational support. The reaction of public sector teachers in regard to the last two variables is similar to that of kibbutz teachers, perhaps owing to similar confidence in overall objective employment security. Seniority in the teaching profession and age predicted some of the work attitudes: seniority predicted increased organizational commitment, increased resistance to change, and increased perceived organizational support. Older age predicted decreased resistance to change and decreased organizational support. The order these variables were entered into the regression equations showed the following: when controlling for age, more senior teachers regarded their schools as more supportive. Controlling for seniority, older teachers were less resistant to change. R2 for all work attitudes is significant, where the explained variance in organizational commitment, intention to leave, resistance to change, perceived performance, and perceived organizational support was 7.5%, 13%, 11.4%, 5.8%, and 8.3%, respectively. When gender was entered at the second step, it significantly contributed to three work attitudes, above and beyond the effects of JI and the other demographic variables. Females, more than men, were committed to their schools ( =.104, p<.05), perceived their performance as higher ( =.170, p<.01), and perceived their organizational support as higher ( =.144, p<.05). Intention to leave and resistance to change were not predicted by gender. The R2 of all models was significant, with R2 of 1.1%, 2.5%, .2%, 2.5%, and 1.5% added to the explained variance in organizational commitment, intention to leave, resistance to change, perceived performance and perceived organizational support, respectively.

(d) Gender Differences in the Effect of JI on Work Attitudes In order to explore the unique effects of gender on the relationshibetween JI and work attitudes, two sets of stepwise regression analyses were performed. Each analysis

19

contained in fact one independent (JI) and one dependent variable (work attitude). Demographic variables (other than gender) were not added in this analysis, since we were interested at this point only in the contribution of JI to work attitudes, not in the contribution of other variables. The analysis, therefore, was similar to correlational analysis, but the model (based on Greenhalgh & Rosenblatt's 1984 conceptualization) enabled causal inferences. Results are presented in Table 5. ( Table 5 about here ) Results show that females had a different pattern than males in their attitudinal reactions to JI. For the female teachers, JI significantly affected all work attitudes measured (note that for resistance to change, the p value was .07, for the rest of the attitudes p value ranged between .00 to .02). For males, in two of the work attitudes measured perceived performance and perceived organizational support JI had no effect. In organizational commitment the effect was relatively weak (p<.09). Males' work attitudes, then, in particular perceived performance and perceived organizational support, were not affected much by JI. Hypothesis 3 was supported: the effect of JI on work attitudes was stronger for females than for males.

DISCUSSION

The results supported the main thrust of this study, that gender affected both the experience and the impact of JI on work attitudes. The two genders differed in their JI level: male teachers were more insecure than female teachers. Moreover, the profiles of the JI experience were different for the two genders: while males were mostly concerned with financial aspects of the job and with making significant impact, females were concerned with work content and work schedule, as well as with financial aspects. In addition, males and females had different patterns in regard to the effect of JI on work attitudes: for females, JI had a stronger and more positive impact on work attitudes than

20

for males. Generally, gender had an added effect, above and beyond JI and other relevant personal characteristics, on most of the work attitudes. That means that the contextual effect of gender cannot be reduced to work-level characteristics. Our interpretation is that this effect is related to external societal forces, specifically, to the general role of females in teaching, in schools, and perhaps in society as a whole. The finding regarding males' higher JI scores (Table 1) indicated that gender differences existed, but in an opposite direction to what was hypothesized. The explanation for this finding possibly lies in the gendered nature of the teaching profession and the school, but in a different way than expected. Indeed, as gender theories claim, males enjoy better promotion opportunities in the teaching profession. However, salaries and benefits of both sexes are lower compared to those in male-dominated occupations. Therefore, males feelings of JI might reflect concerns about financial and material aspects of the job, not necessarily the loss of the total job. The multi-dimensional framework, then, is helpful in tapping the specific sources of JI, bringing them to surface . Another interpretation, from female's point of view, lies in the sex-labeling theory. This model links individual occupational choice and preferences to occupational sexual typification, thus maintaining that socially institutionalized gendered expectations define the expected value of being employed within a given occupation. Being demanded to exert efforts in accordance to domestic roles, it is "rational" for female teachers to focus their attention on the perceived utility of working conditions such as long vacations, institutionalized tenure, and working hours which are believed to be crucial to their domestic duties. In a recent study on Israeli women (Yishai and Cohen, 1997) it was suggested that female teachers' expectations were molded first and foremost by being mothers. The teaching profession is particularly tailored to women's needs, according to sex labeling theory, because it provides long vacations, easy substitution in times of pregnancy, etc. (Oppenheimer, 1968; Lewin, 1992). It is precisely for these reasons that

21

females tend to choose this profession. Therefore, females who enter the teaching profession for external reasons might not experience high levels of JI despite the existence of objective JI indicators. It should be noted that the gender differences in regard to JI might be contingent on other factors, such as age and time. Tolbert and Moen (1998), for example, found that the proportion of individuals assigning top rank to job security increased in time. Similarly, Gomez-Mejia (1983) showed that gender differences in work values declined with length of experience (and age) in the occupation. Another contingency factor might be related to differences in the psychological contract experienced by males and females. A psychological contract reflects the reciprocal obligations between the individual and the organization (Rousseau, 1989). In gendered occupations and organizations, females might perceive a low commitment of the organization to their continued employment, therefore withdraw expectations for job security and avoid the experience of JI altogether. The findings pertaining to the different JI profiles of males and females were perhaps the most original findings of this study (Table 2), demonstrating the added value of the multi-dimensional approach to JI. These findings are supported by previous research that found systematic gender differences in work values. For example, Scozzaro and Subich (1990) showed that male-dominated occupations were perceived as offering the greatest opportunity for pay and promotion, while female-dominated occupations were perceived as providing the most feedback, pleasant co-workers, and better supervision. Even as principals, Israeli females were found to emphasize more the social aspects of work, while Israeli males emphasized the administrative aspects (Rosenblatt & Somech, 1998). In accordance with gender stereotypes, than, female teachers inclined toward "feminine" work values, while male teachers inclined toward "masculine" work values. These tendencies can perhaps offer one explanation to Hofstede's comparative

22

study (1980), where Israeli work culture was featured as mid-way on the masculinityfemininity continuum. The results of the study showed that gender had a significant effect not only on the experience of JI but on work attitudes as well (Table 3). Females were significantly more committed and perceived their performance and organizational support as higher than males did. These findings are in step with Scorzzaro and Zubich (1990), who suggested that females had more positive attitudes toward work than males. The high resistance to change among females is in contrast to the "optimistic" explanation, but this specific difference was statistically insignificant. In regard to intention to leave males showed higher scores. This result is supported by other studies on gender differences in voluntary turnover. It was found, for example, that males in female-dominated occupations have less return on human capital, thus tend to quit more easily (based on Izraeli and Gajer, 1979; Gattiker and Cohen, 1997). Female teachers have lower expected utility from quitting than males teachers, since their comparable worth is measured not only against males in the school system, but also against females in other occupations. Consequently their frustration level should not be high, and they tend less to quit. Simpson and Simpson (1969) found that most of the female teachers (63%) who left their occupations did so because of reasons not related to the position itself, while only 26% of males who left the occupation reported such reasons. As clearly demonstrated in the two-step regression analysis performed (Table 4), gender in this study was found to uniquely explain three work attitudes (organizational commitment, perceived performance, perceived organizational support) above and beyond the explanation power of JI. These findings contribute to our understanding of the organizational implications of JI, adding a powerful variable that was mostly ignored in previous studies. The results of this study also helped to distinguish between the different patterns of the two genders in regard to JI effect on work attitudes (Table 5). Among female

23

teachers JI adversely affected all work attitudes (all relationships but the one pertaining to resistance to change were statistically significant). This pattern was similar to the one obtained in previous studies for combined samples of both males and females (e.g. Ashford et al., 1989; Rosenblatt & Ruvio, 1996). Among male teachers, who were on the whole more job-insecure than female teachers, JI affected only organizational commitment, intention to leave, and resistance to change. For them, perceived performance and perceived organizational support were apparently affected by other factors than JI. Males, whose chances to reach top positions in the teaching occupation are better then those of females, might perceive their organizations as unconditionally supportive. Generally, males are less dependent than females on their jobs, therefore the relationship between subjective JI and work attitudes is lower (Greenhalgh & Rosenblatt, 1984). The importance of research on JI lies, among others, in its relevancy. First, the multi-dimensional approach to JI taken here views the experience of JI as relevant to a wide spectrum of work situations and scenarios: insecurity about losing income, insecurity about sacrificing autonomy, etc. Second, as stated by Jacobson (1991), the population subjected to any degree of JI is considerably larger than the number of workers who actually lose their jobs. The present study demonstrated that JI could be explored in non-threatening occupations such as teaching. It is important to conduct future studies on gender differences in other occupations and other social contexts as well to establish the generalizability of the results obtained here. More importantly, the results of the present study indicate that psychological theories (such as theories on occupational stress) about individuals' behavior are not sufficient to fully understand individual attitudes on the job; sociological theories (such as gender theory) are needed as well. Research on organizational behavior is inherently involved with various facets and various levels of human behavior. This study

24

represented a multidisciplinary effort to tackle the issue of gender differences in the experience of JI, thus enriching and broadening our understanding of this important issue.

CONCLUSIONS

25

REFERENCES

Acker, J. (1990). Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: A theory of gendered organizations, Gender & Society, 4, 2, 139-158. Ashford, S., Lee, & Bobko (1989). Content, causes, and consequences of job insecurity: Theory-based measurement and substantive test, Academy of Management Journal, 32, 4, 803-829. Bamberger, P., M. Admati-Dvir, and G. Harel (1995). Gender-Based Wage And Promotion Discrimination in Israeli High Technology Firms: Do Unions Make a Difference? Academy of Management Journal, 38, 6, 1744-1761. Bem, S. L. (1981). Gender Schema Theory: A Cognitive Account of Sec Typing. Psychological Review, 88, 354-364. Bridges, J. (1989). Sex Differences in Occupational Values. Sex Roles, 20, 3/ 4, 205211. Brockner, J., Grover, S.L. & Blonder, M. (1988). Predictors of survivors' job involvement following layoffs: A field study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 3, 436-442. Calabrese, R. L. and R. E. Anderson (1986). The Public School: Sources of Stress and Alienation Among Female Teachers. Urban Education, 21, 1, 30-41. Chodorov, N. (1978). The Reproduction of Mothering. Los Angeles: University of California Press. Cockburn, [Ilan, R. and Mann, M.(eds.), Gender and Stratification, Oxford: Polity Press. Davy, J.A. Kinicki, A.J. & Scheck, C.L. (1997). A test of job security's direct and mediated ifficts on withdrawal cognitions. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18, 323-349.

first initial] (1986). The Relations of Technology.

In Crompton,

26

Eisenberger, R. Huntington, R. Hutchison, S. and Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 3, 500-507. Elizur, D. (1994). Gender and Work Values: A Comparative Analysis. Journal of Social Psychology, 134, 2, 201-212. Etzion, D. (1984). Moderating effect of social support on the stress-burnout relationship. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 4, 615-622. Gattiger, U. and Cohen, A. (1997). Gender-Based Wage Differences: The Effects of Occupation and Job Segregation in Israel. Relations Industrielles / Industrial Relations, 52, 3, 507-530. Georgiades, M. I. (1967). Attitudes towards change. A study of teachers to educational innovations. M. Phil, Dissertation, University of London. Gmelch, W.H. (1988). Educators' response to stress: Towards a coping taxonomy. The Journal of Educational Administration, 26, 2, 223-231. Gomez-Mejia, L.R. (1983). Sex differences during occupational socialization. Academy of Management Journal, 26, 3, 492-499. Greenhalgh, L. and Rosenblatt, Z. (1984). Job Insecurity: Toward Conceptua Clarity. Academy of Management Review, 9, 3, 438-448. Hackman, J. & Oldham, G. (1980). Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Harpaz, I. (1990a). The meaning of work in Israel: Its nature and consequences. NY: Praeger. Harpaz, I. (1990b). The importance of work goals: An international perspective. Journal of International Business Studies, 21, 75-93. Hartley, J., Jacobson, D., Klandermans, B. & Van Vuuren, T. (1991). Job insecurity: Coping with job at risk. London: Sage. Hartmann, H. (1979). Capitalism, Patriarchy, and Job Segregation by Sex. In Z. Eisenstein (ed.), Capitalism, Patriarchy, and the Case for Socialist Feminism, New York, Monthly Review Press.

27

Hartmann, H. (1981). The Unhappy Marriage of Marxism and Feminism: Towards a More Progressive Union. In L. Sargant (ed.), Women and Revolution, Boston: South End Press. Herz, D. (1991). Worker displacement still common in the late 1980's. Monthly Labor Review, 114, 3-9. Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's Consequences: International Differences in Work-related Values. London: Sage. Hunt, G. (1993). Sex Differences in a Pink-Collar Occupation. Relations Industrielles / Industrial Relations, 42, 3, 441-459. Israeli & Gajer (1979) [Ilan??] Jacobson, D. (1991). Toward a theoretical distinction between the stress components of the job insecurity and job loss experiences. In Bacharach, S.B. (Ed.), Research in the Sociology of Organizations, Vol. 9, 1-19, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Kuhnert, K.W., & Palmer, D.R. (1989). Job security, health, and the intrinsic and extrinsic characteristics of work. Group & Organization Studies, 16, 2, 178-192. Kuhnert, K.W., Sims, R.R., & Lahey, M.A. (1989). The relationship between job security and Employee health. Group & Organization Studies, 14, 4, 399-410. Kuhnert, K.W. & Vance, R.J. (1992). Job insecurity and moderators of the relation between job insecurity and employee adjustment. In J.C. Quick, L.R. Murphy, & J.J. Hurrell, Jr. (Eds.), Stress and Well-being at Work, Washington: APA. Lewin, A. (1992). Married Women's Labor Force Participation and Part-Time Employment in Israel. Paper presented at the American Sociological Association conference, Pittsburgh, August. Lim, K. G. (1996). Job Insecurity and Its Outcomes: Moderating Effects of Work-Based and Nonwork-Based Social Support. Human Relations, 49, 2.

28

Long, B. C. & Gessaroli, M. E. (1989). The Relationship Between Teacher Stress and Perceived Coping Effectiveness: Gender and Marital Differences. The Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 35, 4, 308-324. Lorber, J. (1994). The paradoxes of gender. New Haven: Yale University Press. Loseby, P.H. (1992). Employment Security. Westport, CT: Quorum Books. Martocchio, K. and O'Leary, A. (1989). Sex Difference in Occupational Stress: A meta-Analytical Review. Jof Applied Psychology, 74, 3, 495-501. Mowday, R. Steers, R. M. and Porter, L. W. (1979). The measurement of organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, 224-247. News & World Report (1995). Affirmative action on the edge, Feb. 13, 33-47. Oppenheimer, V. (1968). The Sex Labeling of Jobs. Industrial Relations, 7, 219-234. Owens, R.G. (1995). Organizational Behavior in Education. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Palgi, M. and Adar, G. (1997). Women's Work in the Changing Kibbutz. In A. Maor (Ed.), Women: The Emergent Power: The Advancement of Women at Work and the Breaking Up of the Ceiling Glass, pp. 215-227, Tel Aviv: Sifriat ha-Po'alim, (Hebrew). Parkin, (1974).

[ Ilan???]
Rosenblatt, Z. & Inbal, B. (1998). Skill flexibility among schoolteachers:

operationalization and organizational implications. Paper presented at the 1998 Academy of Management Annual Meeting, San Diego, California. Rosenblatt, Z. and Ruvio, A. (1996). A Test of Multidimensional Model of Job Insecurity: The Case of Israeli Teachers. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17, 587-605. Rosenblatt, Z. & Somech, A. (1998). The Work Behavior of Israeli Elementary-School Principals: Expectations vs. Reality. Educational Administration Quarterly, 34, 3. (in press)

29

Rousseau, D.M. (1989). Psychological and implied contracts in organizations. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 2, 2, 121-139 Ruvio, A., & Rosenblatt, Z. (forthcoming). Job insecurity among Israeli schoolteachers: Sectoral profiles and organizational implications. Journal of Educational Administration. Scozarro, P. and Subich, L. (1990). Gender and Occupational Sex-Type Difference in Job Outcome Factor Perception. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 36, 109-119. Shakeshaft, C. (1986). Women in Educational Administration. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Sharan, S. and Shahar, H. (1990). Organization and team work in educational institutions. Jerusalem: Shoken (Hebrew). Simpson, R. and Simpson, I. H., (1969). Women and Bureaucracy in the SemiProfession., In A. Eztioni (Ed.), The semi-professions and their organization: teachers, nurses, social workers, pp. 196-265, New York, Free Press. Talmud, I. & Izraeli, D. N. (1998). The relationship between gender and performance issues of concern to directors: Correlates or institution? Journal of Organizational Behavior. in press. Tolbert, P.S., and Moen, P. (1998). Men's and women's definitions of "good" jobs: Similarities and differences by age and across time. Work and Occupations, 25, 2, 168-194. Walby, S. (1986). Patriarchy at Work. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Walsh, J. P. Ashford, S. J. & Hill, T. E. (1985). Feedback obstruction: The influence of the information environment on employee turnover intentions. Human Relations, 38, 23-46. Weber, (1988). Witz, A. (1990). Patriarchy and Professions: The Gendered Politics of Occupationa Closure. Sociology, 24, 4, 675-690.

[Ilan]

30

Yishai, Y. & Cohen, A. (1997). Unrepresentative bureaucracy: Women in the Israeli senior civil service. Administration and Society, 28, 4, 441-465.

31

TABLE 1
Job Insecurity Scores of Female and Male Teachers (t-tests)

Total Sample (n= 385)

Female
(n= 263)

Male
(n= 112)

t (df,p)

SD 6.34 2.97 4.40

X 17.52 8.71 8.81

SD 6.21 2.91 4.28

X 19.19 9.42 9.77

SD 6.55 3.08 4.65 -2.30 (200, .02) -2.10 (199, .04) -1.86 (195, .05)

Job Insecurity Scale

Job Features Sub-Scale Total Job Sub-Scale

18.05 8.93 9.12

TABLE 2 Scores of Job Insecurity Sub-scales of Female and Male Teachers (t-tests)

Total (n= 385) Job Features Sub-Scale

Female (n= 263)

Male (n= 112)

t (df,p)

Geographic Location Promotion Opportunities Maintain Pay Level

or sr 6r

8.6 8.3

(5.4) (5.2)

8.56 8.00 9.53

(5.36) (4.99) (5.49)

8.90 9.14 11.53

(5.68) (5.64) (6.35)

n.s. n.s. -2.90 (00. ,1185)

10.1 (5.8)

Pay Raise

_r

10.4 (5.6)

9.80

(5.24)

11.77

(6.32)

-2.91 (00. ,179)

Status Autonomy in Work Design Autonomy in Performing

_r _r _r

9.5 9.5 10.2

(5.0) (5.2) (5.5)

9.15 9.33 10.03

(4.73) (5.30) (5.52)

10.14 9.89 10.66

(5.42) (5.09) (5.59)

n.s. n.s. n.s.

32

Work Access to Resources Co-Workers Performance Feedback Supervision Physical Demands Interaction with Public Task Variety Complete Entire Work Significant Impact Mr Sr oDr oor osr o6r o_r o_r o_r 9.4 8.6 9.2 8.4 6.7 7.6 9.3 9.5 9.4 (5.4) (5.1) (5.2) (5.0) (4.9) (4.2) (4.9) (5.4) (5.2) 9.01 8.40 9.08 8.35 6.58 7.36 9.26 9.30 9.00 (5.24) (4.78) (5.19) (5.26) (4.96) (4.15) (5.00) (5.38) (4.96) 10.18 9.18 9.49 8.58 6.98 7.96 9.58 10.30 10.41 (5.52) (5.83) (5.32) (4.65) (4.89) (4.42) (4.95) (5.67) (5.86)
n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. -2.22 (03. ,182)

Self-Recognition of Performance Team Participation Recognition from Principal Training

o_r

9.1

(5.2)

8.98

(5.21)

9.19

(5.22)

n.s.

oMr oSr sDr

7.5 8.8 9.1

(5.2) (5.5) (5.1)

7.68 8.78 8.68

(5.56) (5.45) (4.69)

7.19 8.87 9.94

(4.15) (5.71) (5.85)

n.s. n.s. -2.02 (04. ,175)

Special Assignments
Total Job Sub-Scale

sor

8.1

(5.3)

7.96

(5.17)

8.01

(5.41)

n.s.

Cut in Work Hours or 10.1 (6.7)

9.46

(6.24)

11.65

(7.58)

-2.69 (01. ,178)

Layoff sr Involuntary Early Retirement 6r Undesirable Changes in Work Schedule Lower Level Class _r _r

8.7 (6.5) 7.2 (5.2) 10.9 (6.4)

8.37 7.06 10.72

(5.99) (4.92) (6.30)

9.39 7.60 11.38

(7.73) (5.59) (6.83)

n.s. n.s. n.s.

8.6 (6.1)

8.45

(6.19)

8.81

(5.88)

n.s.

33

34

TABLE 3
Work Attitude Scores of Female and Male Teachers (t-tests)

Total Sample
(n= 385) Commitment 3.93 (.71)

Female
(n= 263) 3.99 (.67)

Male
(n= 112) 3.81 (.81) t 2.05 (180, .04)

Intention to Leave

1.91

(.96)

1.83

(.94)

2.10

(1.03)

-2.32 (194, .02)

Resistance to Change

2.83

(.81)

2.86

(.85)

2.74

(.72)

n.s

Perceived Performance

4.35

(.44)

4.41

(.40)

4.23

(.49)

3.44 (179, .00)

Perceived Organizational Support

3.48

(.62)

3.56

(.67)

3.30

(.52)

4.04 (261, .00)

Higher means are presented in bold letters.

35

TABLE 4
Effects of Job Insecurity, Demographic variables and Gender on Teachers' Work Attitudes: Two-step Regression

Commitment

Intention to Leave

Resistance to Change

Perceived Performance

Perceived Organizational Support

Beta Step 1 JIS (1)-.203***

Beta (1).305***

Beta (4).113**

Beta (3)-.113 **

Beta (1)-.173 ***

Place Sector

n.s n.s

n.s (2)-.115**

(1).-.228*** (2).197***

(1)-.230 *** (2).155**

(2)-.131** (3).133**

Seniority in Profession Age R_ Step 2 Gender

(2).198***

n.s

(3).264**

n.s

(5).207**

n.s .075*** .104**

n.s .130*** -.074

(5)-.169** .114*** .077

n.s .058*** .170***

(4)-.275*** .083***

.144**

R_

.086***

.135***

.116***

.083***

.101***

p< .01

** p < .05 *** p < .10 (numbers in parentheses indicate the order entered by the computer in the first step)

36

TABLE 5
Effect of Job Insecurity on Work Attitudes of Female and Male Teachers Total Sample
(n= 385) Beta Commitment R_ F (p) Beta Intention to Leave R_ F (p) Beta Resistance to Change R_ F (p) Beta Perceived Performance R_ F (p) Beta Perceived Organizational Support R_ F (p) -.18 .02 13.18 (.00) .36 .13 56.38 (.00) 0.19 .02 7.74 (.00) -.13 .02 6.77 (.01) -.18 .03 12.34 (.00)

Female
(n= 263) -.19 .03 9.78 (.00) .37 .14 42.48 (.00) .11 .01 3.42 (.07) -.16 .02 6.45 (.02) -.21 .04 11.86 (.00)

Male
(n= 112) -.16 .03 2.82 (.09) .31 .09 11.37 (.00) .25 .10 7.49 (.01)

n.s

n.s

37

APPENDIX 1
Demographic Characteristics of Female and Male Teachers Female
(n= 263) Working Place - Kibbutz - City Sector Private Public Age Married (%) Seniority (Years) - At School - In Profession Education (%) - Prof. degree - B.A. - M.A. and above 26.8 57.1 16.1 45.9 45.0 9.1 32.4 53.7 13.9 10.2 (7.8) 14.7 (8.7) 11.0 (8.5) 16.1 (9.7) 10.4 (8.0) 15.1 (9.1) Mo 56 Mo 207 39.1 (8.6) 89 62 50 40.8 (8.9) 89 121 264 40.3 (8.7) 89 84 179 26 86 112 273

Male
(n= 112)

Total Sample
(n= 385)