As a result of the changing nature of the relationship between employee and organization (Piccoli and De Witte, 2015), job insecurity has become a “sizeable social phenomenon” (De Witte, 2005) referring to employees feeling that their jobs are at risk (Reisel, 2003; Vander Elst et al., 2014a; Probst et al., 2017, 2019). In our VUCA times, and more than never in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, job insecurity presents a management challenge (Murugan et al., 2020).

Job insecurity has been defined in various ways in the literature. One of the earliest and most-quoted definitions was provided by Greenhalgh and Rosenblatt (1984, p. 438), claiming that job insecurity was “the perceived powerlessness to maintain desired continuity in a threatened job situation.” Another commonly quoted definition was proposed by De Witte (2005, p. 1), arguing that job insecurity was “the perceived threat of job loss and the worries related to that threat.” Nonetheless, the diversity in definitions—for the overview of definitions, see Shoss (2017)—allows to point out several characteristics of the construct included in all or some definitions. First, job insecurity is a subjective experience, resulting from an individual’s perception and interpretation of the actual work situation implying that the same objective situation may be interpreted in various ways by different employees (De Witte et al., 2015). Thus, the following situation is possible: Some employees may feel secure about their jobs, even though they will be laid off soon afterward, whereas others may feel insecure although their job continuity is (“objectively speaking”) not in danger (De Witte, 2005). Second, job insecurity is a future-focused phenomenon (Vander Elst et al., 2014a). Job insecurity reflects a forecast about a loss event, which might happen 1 day in the nearest or further future (Shoss, 2017). Thus, employees are “groping in the dark” as far as their future within the particular organization is concerned (De Witte, 2005). Third, job insecurity hints at involuntary nature (Sverke and Hellgren, 2002) as the construct reflects “discrepancy between what people wish for (certainty about the future of their current employment) and what people ‘get’ (the perception that the current job is threatened)” (De Witte et al., 2015, p. 110). Fourth, job insecurity implies uncertainty about the future: The employee does not know whether they will keep or lose the current job (De Witte et al., 2015). Finally, a feeling of powerlessness is also a part of numerous job insecurity definitions (De Witte, 2005).

The overview of definitions (Shoss, 2017) also allows for distinguishing different types of job insecurity, namely quantitative and qualitative. Quantitative job insecurity denotes the fear of losing the job as such (Vander Elst et al., 2014a). Employees are uncertain about whether they will be able to keep their current jobs or will become unemployed (De Witte, 2005). Thus, quantitative job insecurity implies the worries about losing one’s job altogether (Hu et al., 2021). Meanwhile, qualitative job insecurity refers to employees’ perceived threat to valued job features (Vander Elst et al., 2014a). Thus, employees are not so much afraid of being fired, but rather fear the impairment of valued job features, such as career possibilities, development of competencies, or salary (Hu et al., 2021).

Being a central construct in Industrial/Organisational Psychology, employee performance refers to “actions, behaviour and outcomes that employees engage in or bring out that are linked with and contribute to organizational goals” (Viswesvaran and Ones, 2000, p. 216). In other words, employee performance defines whether the behavior of employees matches the goals of the particular organization and whether it can achieve the desired results of that organization (Gong et al., 2019). Actually, employee performance is an umbrella term, which includes several distinct types or dimensions of performance behavior (Sverke et al., 2019). This paper limits its focus only to one dimension, namely task performance.

In Work Psychology literature, task performance is defined as the effectiveness with which job incumbents perform activities that contribute to the organization’s technical core either directly by implementing a part of its technological process, or indirectly by providing it with the necessary materials or services (Borman and Motowidlo, 1993, 1997). Similarly, Van Scotter (2000, pp. 80–81) argues that employees are engaging in task performance when they “use technical skills and knowledge to produce goods or services through the organization’s core technical processes, or when they accomplish specialized tasks that support these core functions.” In general terms, task performance refers to the execution of the tasks assigned to the employee (Darvishmotevali and Ali, 2020) through a job description or communicated in other ways (Sverke et al., 2019). Accordingly, task performance requires more cognitive ability and is primarily facilitated through task knowledge, task skill, and task habits (Conway, 1999). In order to be proficient at task performance and to meet the expectations the organization (Darvishmotevali and Ali, 2020), employees need both, the ability to do the job and prior experience (Pradhan and Jena, 2017).

Well-being, understood as the essential qualities of a good society and the good life, has been a subject of consideration at least since the times of Aristotle (Diener and Suh, 1997). Despite alternative viewpoints in determining the quality of life, two conceptual approaches to well-being research now prevail in the field (Western and Tomaszewski, 2016), namely the objective and the subjective approaches. As the objective well-being is based on observable factors such as richness, tangible goods, or health (D’Acci, 2011), the SWB refers to people’s own evaluations of their lives (Western and Tomaszewski, 2016) and is psychologically experienced (D’Acci, 2011). The current paper limits its focus only to SWB.

According to Diener et al. (2002, p. 63), SWB is defined as “a person’s cognitive and affective evaluations of his or her life.” Proctor (2014, p. 6437) claims that SWB “is the personal perception and experience of positive and negative emotional responses and global and (domain) specific cognitive evaluations of satisfaction with life.” Actually, SWB is a more scientific-sounding term for what people usually mean by happiness (Diener et al., 2002; Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi, 2014). SWB is a self-reported measure of well-being and addresses the person’s feelings about life in the context of their own standards (Diener and Suh, 1997; Diener and Ryan, 2009). Accordingly, the evaluations can be either formulated in terms of cognitive reflections or in terms of affect (Diener and Suh, 1997). The cognitive aspect of SWB refers to what people think about their life satisfaction in general (life as a whole) and also in a certain area of life, such as work or relationships. Meanwhile, the affective aspect of SWB implies the individual’s feeling, emotion, and mood. The affect can be positive when things seem to be going well or negative when people experience a decline in the course of things (Diener et al., 2017). Positive affect encompasses both momentary emotions (for instance, enjoyment), and more chronic long-term moods (for instance contentment). In the case of negative affect, the situation is similar, with negative affect including anger, sadness, worry, or stress as momentary emotions, and longer-lasting moods such as depression that might occur over time (Diener et al., 2017).

Following the notion that trust is a key “aspect of relationships” (Gullett et al., 2009), trust is usually defined as “a psychological state comprising the intention to accept vulnerability based upon positive expectations of the intentions or behaviour of another” (Rousseau et al., 1998, p. 395). To elaborate this idea, there are two conditions that must exist for trust to arise, namely risk and interdependence. Risk is the perceived probability of loss, as interpreted by the trusting party, while interdependence implies that one party’s interests cannot be fulfilled without reliance on the other party (Rousseau et al., 1998).

Within an organizational setting, trust can be manifested in reference to individuals (for example, trust in one’s supervisor or colleague), specific groups (for example, trust in top-level managers or team), or the organization as a whole (Schoorman et al., 2007). The current paper considers employees’ trust in the employing organization as a whole (Verburg et al., 2018; Guzzo et al., 2021). Accordingly, trust in an organization refers to the individual’s expectation that some organized system will act with predictability and goodwill (Maguire and Phillips, 2008).

The main theoretical model shown in Figure 1 represents, on the one hand, a virtuous cycle between trust in the organization, SWB, and employee performance. On the other hand, the model captures the expected negative effect caused by job insecurity (considering the quantitative and the qualitative dimensions) in this virtuous cycle. Below the hypothesis is grounded.

Partial least squares (PLS), a technique of structural equation modeling (SEM), can provide much value for causal inquiry in the Organisational Psychology field (Ringle et al., 2020). Following the procedure of Hair et al. (2019), this paper will report the results of an empirical study using PLS-SEM to validate a reflective structural model derived from the theoretical model previously developed here.

The PLS-SEM method will enable to estimate the model, with many constructs, indicators, and structural paths, without imposing the distributional normality on the data. In addition, PLS-SEM is considered a causal-predictive method (Sarstedt et al., 2017) that is very suitable for our purposes.

Given the objective of the research, data were collected by using a convenience sampling type from employees in Lithuania. Convenience sampling is a type of non-probability sampling where members of the target population that meet certain practical criteria, such as availability at a given time, easy accessibility, geographical proximity, or the willingness to participate are included for the purpose of the study (Etikan et al., 2016).

For the survey, the online questionnaire was created. The questionnaire was distributed via LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram. Due to the way of questionnaire dissemination, it is impossible to estimate the number of persons the questionnaire was sent to and the response rate. While distributing the questionnaire, the information about the purpose of the survey and a link to a survey were enclosed. Data collection took place during the COVID-19 lockdown period, in April and May 2020 (approx. 1 month). Such length of the period for data selection was chosen due to several reasons. First, as the study has been developed in a context characterized by VUCA, the period of approximately 1 month seems adequate as in VUCA context, and changes are continuous. Second, during the mentioned period, rules regarding lockdown have not been modified. Third, as usually 80% of responses are collected within 7 days (SurveyMonkey INC.),¹ there was no advantage in keeping the survey open for a longer period. At the end of the research, 211 questionnaires were collected. The profile of respondents is presented in Table 1. Turning to demographical characteristics of the respondents, 163 of them were women (77.3%). Only 55 respondents (26.1%) held a managerial position. One hundred and six respondents were born in 1981–2001, and 88 respondents were born in 1965–1980.

A self-reported questionnaire with questions to be answered on a five-point Likert scale was used in the study where 1 indicated “strongly disagree,” and 5 indicated “strongly agree.” All items were translated into Lithuanian language using a back translation procedure (Brislin, 1970), ensuring translation accuracy.

Job insecurity was measured as a higher-order construct, which consists of two dimensions. First, quantitative job insecurity was measured using a four-item scale developed by De Witte (2000). Sample items are: “I feel insecure about the future of my job” and “I am sure I can keep my job” (reverse-coded). Second, qualitative job insecurity was measured using a four-item scale developed by Hellgren et al. (1999). Sample item is: “My pay development in this organisation is promising” (reverse-coded).

Trust in the organization was measured using seven items provided by Robinson (1996). Sample items are: “In general, I believe my employer’s motives and intentions are good” and “My employer is open and up-front with me.” The model also examined the SWB by using a five-item scale of Diener et al. (1985). A sample item is: “In most ways my life is close to my ideal.” Finally, task performance was measured using a four-item scale developed by Verburg et al. (2018). Sample item is “I fulfill the responsibilities specified in job description.”

First, the previous literature distinguishes between considered quantitative and qualitative job insecurity (Lee et al., 2018). However, the paper provides support that job insecurity is multidimensional construct, confirming its two dimensions.

Second, as job insecurity is a subjective experience (Vander Elst et al., 2014a), employees may experience varying degrees of uncertainty, even if they are objectively under the same working conditions (Lepine et al., 2005). As such, job insecurity may trigger contradicting reactions. This notwithstanding, the growing body of the literature considers job insecurity as a relevant job stressor, which has a detrimental effect on employees (Lee et al., 2018).

As it was predicted, the findings revealed that job insecurity served as a determinant of lower trust in the organization. These findings are in line with some previous studies (Kim, 2019) supporting the idea that breach of the psychological contract harms the employer–employee relationships (Maguire, 2003; Rao, 2021). As trust creates a collaborative environment by giving employee a feeling of security (Dirks and Ferrin, 2001; Ertürk and Vurgun, 2015), it is particularly important in times of crisis and uncertainty (Gustafsson et al., 2021), like in the VUCA world. Hence, the current paper contributes by elaborating on the relationship between trust in the organization and overall employee concern about the continued existence of their job in the future and its valued features (De Witte, 2005).

Third, as predicted, the findings revealed that job insecurity led to lower SWB. According to the COR theory, when employees perceive a resource loss or anticipate the possibility of resource loss (perception of job insecurity), they will invest their remaining resources in proactive defense against such resource loss (Hobfoll, 1989). As such, the defense against the potential loss of job (quantitative job insecurity) or valued job features (qualitative job insecurity) might result in lower SWB. Although some previous studies have confirmed the hypothesized negative effect of job insecurity on SWB, mostly they considered quantitative job insecurity or qualitative job insecurity (Hu et al., 2021). Hence, the current paper broadens the literature treating job insecurity as a second-order construct and providing an answer to the empirical question regarding the potential negative impact of job insecurity on SWB.

Fourth, contrary to the expectations, the hypothesis regarding the negative effect of job insecurity on task performance was rejected. Previous findings were contradicted. Some studies have shown that job insecurity decreased task performance of employees (Cheng and Chan, 2008; Schreurs et al., 2012). However, other studies have shown that job insecurity was not related to performance or even have suggested that job insecurity could motivate employees to perform better in order to secure their jobs (Shin et al., 2019; Sverke et al., 2019). Accordingly, the current finding calls for further investigation and stimulates further discussion through the understanding of the relationship between job insecurity and task performance as job insecurity might serve in this relationship as a hindrance stressor or challenge stressor (Piccoli et al., 2021).

Fifth, while exploring the virtuous cycle between trust in the organization, SWB, and task performance, the findings demonstrated that trust in the organization increased SWB, whereas SWB increased task performance. Hence, the current paper broadens the literature by exploring the virtual cycle between constructs, which are important outcomes of job insecurity.

In addition to the theoretical implications, the research has some managerial implications for practitioners. Following the notion that job insecurity is one of the most important stressors in work life (Vander Elst et al., 2014a) and based on the finding that job insecurity impairs trust in the organization and task performance, organizational leaders are invited to design some strategies and take some initiatives, which are concerned with eliminating or reducing job insecurity as such. The current literature supports the initial view of De Witte (2005) that job insecurity could be eliminated or mitigated by communication (Jiang and Probst, 2014), participation in decision making (Gallie et al., 2017), and enhancement of organizational justice (Greenberg, 1990). More recently, Shin and Hur (2019) highlighted the importance of employee training aimed at increasing their confidence. Although job insecurity is inevitable in the VUCA world, several aspects that might be taken into consideration by practitioners are provided below.

First, valuable and relevant communication might serve as an energy resource (Jiang and Probst, 2014). Accordingly, open, early, and honest information increases the predictability of future work existence and its valued features (De Witte, 2005). Moreover, communication tends to show that one is respected as an employee (De Witte, 2005). Respect captures the state of being seen and valued by recognizing another person, listening, understanding, and appreciating people, attending to needs, emphasizing another’s good qualities (Carmeli et al., 2015). Thus, leaders are strongly encouraged to implement a sustainable communication process where frequency, channels, structure, and content of the messages are highly important.

Second, by participating, employees have influence over decision making (Vander Elst et al., 2010) and control over situation (De Witte, 2005); therefore, job insecurity is reduced. Consulting with employees on work-related issues spreads the message among employees that their needs are important for the organization and taken into consideration (Gallie et al., 2017). Clear strategy addressing employee participation in decision making and implementation of explicit actions lead to higher situation predictability and control, which in turn mitigate job insecurity.

Third, the organizations should rethink organizational justice, which deals with the understanding of the complexity of fair treatment in a work setting (Graso et al., 2020). In fact, employees who perceive greater organizational justice will have a stronger sense of being valued by the organizations (Cropanzano et al., 2001). The sense of value tends to increase the predictability and controllability of work situations experienced by employees and accordingly lowers their job insecurity.

Fourth, the role of employee development, especially in a VUCA world (Dachner et al., 2021), is highly underestimated in the literature. The employee development referring to “the expansion of an individual’s capacity to function effectively in his or her present or future job and work organization” (McCauley and Hezlett, 2001, p. 314) is supposed not only to enhance the employee competences, but also reduce job insecurity, as employee will be more confident about successful managing of changes in case of job or its valued attribute loss.

Summing up, the complex of actions with respect to open communication, employee development, involving employees in decision making, and increasing the feeling of organizational justice of the organizational actions might create a synergic effect and reduce job insecurity as such.

This research has some shortcomings that might be addressed in future research.

The first concern is related to self-reported nature of the data regarding task performance. This may have increased the risk of common method variance (Podsakoff et al., 2003, 2012) and other response biases such as social desirability. Attempts were made to decrease the social desirability on measurements of task performance by guaranteeing the anonymity of results and emphasizing that there would be no right or wrong answers (Piccoli et al., 2021). Nonetheless, in order to avoid overrated results, other rated measures of task performance are recommended (Peiró et al., 2019).

The second concern deals with the fact that objective predictors of job insecurity were neglected in the current research. In the course of the survey, the data on organizations’ industry or size, or employee income level, educational level or living place (rural or urban area) were not collected. Assuming that objective predictors matter (Keim et al., 2014), further research should consider previously mentioned relevant data.

The third concern is related to the sample size. The sample size limits the opportunity to draw generalized conclusions. The paper calls for the future studies addressing the sample which would allow for providing robust generalized conclusions.

The fourth concern refers to the sample. As a sample from one country is considered to be an appropriate practice (Shin and Hur, 2019), it would nonetheless be interesting to examine whether the job insecurity, trust in the organization, SWB, and task performance relationship in a virtuous cycle vary across countries and whether this variation depends on specific country-level characteristics.

Finally, seeing that the previous studies showed inconsistent results regarding the existing gender differences when predicting the perceived job insecurity based on objective individual and organizational variables (Menéndez-Espina et al., 2020), further studies might address the gender aspect while revealing the linkage between job insecurity, trust in the organization, SWB, and task performance in the VUCA context.