Microsoft Word ji job Pres Preprint docx

STUDY 1: DISCUSSION 
Our findings suggest that JI is positively associated with subsequent organization-
directed counterproductive work behaviors, evasive knowledge hiding, and self-presentation 

---

JOB INSECURITY AND JOB PRESERVATION 16
ingratiatory behaviors, but no change in job performance. Examining these findings in 
conjunction with our 2x2 typology of job preservation behaviors suggests that JI may lead 
individuals to focus on more socially-oriented resource investment strategies as indicated by self-
presentation ingratiatory behavior and evasive knowledge hiding. In turn, evasive knowledge 
hiding serves as a successful strategy to reduce subsequent JI. This echoes one knowledge 
worker’s comments in a popular press report: “One of the most valuable things I learned was to 
give the appearance of being courteous while withholding just enough information from 
colleagues to ensure they didn’t get ahead of me” (Maier, 2016, para. 4). The findings of a non-
significant relationship between JI and subsequent performance and a positive relationship 
between JI and organizational counterproductive work behaviors, however, raise questions about 
whether employees, on average, tend to put forth effort for job performance and refraining from 
counterproductive work behavior as potential job preservation strategies.
STUDY 2 
In our second study, we seek to clarify these findings by (a) examining the indirect effect 
of JI on work behaviors through job preservation motivation, as well as (b) examining potential 
moderating factors tied to the perceived nature of the JI threat. As noted above, COR theory’s 
ideas about resource investment suggest that feeling that one’s job is in jeopardy motivates 
individuals to try to avoid loss by enacting specific behavioral strategies. Although this may be 
implied by patterns of relationships, such as the positive directional relationship between JI and 
subsequent self-presentation ingratiatory behavior found above, examining the indirect effects of 
job preservation motivation provides a more direct test of this idea.
Additionally, there may be reason to anticipate that perceptions of threat characteristics 
may impact the JI- job preservation motivation relationship, thereby shaping the indirect effects 

---

JOB INSECURITY AND JOB PRESERVATION 17
of JI on work behaviors. Building on the ideas that energy and effort can be depleted over time, 
Hagger (2015) recently drew from models of self-regulation (e.g., Muraven, Shmueli, & 
Burkley, 2006) to offer a useful expansion of COR theory that addresses when individuals would 
be motivated to invest effort and energy to counteract threats. Hagger (2015) suggested that 
individuals’ investment of time and energy will be shaped by (a) the extent to which they believe 
investment can be useful as well as (b) the timeframe by which they anticipate needing to 
mobilize and expend resources. Thus, Hagger (2015) conceptualized individuals’ investment of 
resources as a strategic decision made with respect to the specific situation at hand.
Perceived threat controllability, reflecting “individuals’ appraisals regarding the degree to 
which a given threat can be counteracted—in other words, whether there are ways to keep the 
threat of loss from translating into actual loss” (Shoss, 2017: 1937), aligns with Hagger’s idea 
that people will be more motivated to invest resources when they view this investment as 
potentially worthwhile. Hagger argued that “individuals are less likely to part more with their 
‘limited’ or ‘precious’ resources when there is little justification to do so and may, therefore, opt 
to conserve them thereby leading to reduced capacity” (Hagger, 2015: 91). Thus, to the extent to 
which employees believe that threats can be counteracted by their own behavior, they should 
have greater motivation for investing their time and energy into potential job preservation efforts 
(Ouwehand, de Ridder, & Bensig, 2008).
Threat proximity captures employees’ anticipation of when threats might come to 
fruition. Some threats to JI may reflect acute threats that will occur imminently (e.g., impending 
organizational restructuring; warnings from one’s supervisor), and would be anticipated to 
motivate a more immediate response (Fried et al., 2003). Other threats, such as concern about 
eventual job loss due to automation, may occur more distally. Immediate threats garner more 

---

JOB INSECURITY AND JOB PRESERVATION 18
attention and more immediate motivation to resolve (Hagger, 2015).
Past research has found indirect evidence in support of these ideas (see Shoss, 2017), 
although the studies do not necessarily allow for disentangling the impact of perceived 
controllability and proximity. For instance, Probst and colleagues’ (Probst et al., 2007; Probst, 
2002) laboratory research found that performance increased among those in the layoff threat 
experimental condition who were told that “layoffs will be determined based on your overall 
work in the next work period.” The threats in these experiments can be viewed as controllable 
and imminent. Similar findings have been reported in studies of professional athletes and CEOs, 
who perform better by some metrics during the last year of their contracts (Liu & Xuan, 2014; 
White & Sheldon, 2014). Outside of the JI literature, research on goal threat has found both 
perceptions of threat controllability and proximity are associated with greater motivation to 
reduce the threat (Ouwehand, de Ridder, & Bensing, 2008). Thus, we hypothesized that: