Job Satisfaction and Values: A Comparison between Non-traditional Workers and Traditional Workers

In Italy the subject of atypical work has attracted the attention of researchers from different fields of work, in particular since the Biaggi Act (L. 30 14/02/03) regulated new contractual forms introducing profound innovations in the organization of work. Although the labor market is still mainly characterized by standard business relations, in recent years the Italian context has seen an exponential growth of “atypical” forms of work, with respect to those defined as “typical” or “traditional”, which are substantially characterized by a permanent contract (Mandrone, 2006). “Atypical jobs” include multiple forms of contract (such as contracts of service with VAT registration number, fixed-term contracts, and project contracts), which are all characterized by the temporary nature of the business relation. Therefore, atypical work refers to all working procedures which, for various reasons, are not referable to the standard model of work which has characterized the occupational structure of the “Fordist society” (Accornero, 2001; Gallino, 2001). “Atypicalness” refers to a series of discontinuous normative elements which concern the time, places, tutelage, negotiation practices, exemption, roles and the content itself of traditional professional services (Chicchi, 2002). Today, even public organizations, like private organizations, avail themselves of new professionals with atypical contracts who support permanent workers with a traditional contract. What often happens is that atypical workers cover, especially in public organizations, crucial, and innovative roles (Accornero, 2006). Nevertheless, atypical work happens to be spreading in a sociocultural context – that of Italy – which is still imbued with traditional values which are not easy to reconcile with the values of flexibility and change. As atypical work spread in Europe (Brewster, Mayne & Tregaskis, 1997), a growing body of psychological literature focused its attention on the negative effects of this type of work on the individual (De Cuyper & De Witte, 2006; Palmonari & Sarchielli, 2004; Parker, Griffin, Sprigg & Wall, 2002; Sverke, Hellgren & Näswall, 2002): the growth of stress and other psychic and somatic pathologies linked to the world of work (Ito & Brotheridge, 2001; Metcalfe & Smith, 2003), problems in reconciling professional and private life (Bosio, Lozza & Graffigna, 2006; Salmieri, 2006), the experiences of social marginality (Boris & Degiuli, 2003; Chicchi, 2002; Gallino, 2001) and uncertain working conditions (Bosio, Lozza & Graffigna, 2006), vaguely defined working identity (Chicchi, 2002; Rizza, 2003), the compromise of the planning dimension (Zappalà, Sarchielli & Depolo, 2006), reduced commitment towards the organization (De Witte & Näswall, 2003; Ferrari, Magri & Valsecchi, 2006), and the development of a different psychological contract with the organization (De Cuyper & De Witte, 2006; Sparrow, 2000). The feeling of precariousness, typical of atypical workers, has an effect on the levels of satisfaction and quality of life (Sarchielli, 2003). Atypical workers, who probably have new and different values from permanent workers, may experience more dissatisfaction than their colleagues, due mainly to the conditions of “insecurity” and “precariousness” intrinsically linked to these contractual typologies.