Microsoft Word ji job Pres Preprint docx

STUDY 1 
Given the inconsistency in the literature regarding the nature of relationships between JI 
and work behaviors, Study 1 utilizes a cross-lagged panel design with three waves of data 
collection to shed light on the directional relationship between JI and workplace behavior. Cross-
lagged panel designs are advantageous because they model both causal and reversed causal 
associations as well as autoregressive effects between a set of variables over time, thus allowing 
for insight into potential subsequent effects of each variable. This design is critical for 
overcoming methodological challenges in the JI literature (e.g., the predominance of cross-
sectional designs) and provides an important foundation for understanding whether job 
preservation is a useful perspective through which to understand responses to JI. Based on theory 
articulated above suggesting that people should be motivated to invest resources (e.g., time, 
effort) in an effort to mitigate threats to their jobs, a job preservation perspective on JI would 
predict relationships between JI and subsequent workplace behaviors such that:
Hypotheses 1a-1d. Job insecurity is (a) positively associated with performance, (b) 

---

JOB INSECURITY AND JOB PRESERVATION 9
negatively associated with counterproductive work behaviors, (c) positively associated with self-
presentation ingratiatory behaviors, and (d) positively associated with knowledge hiding.
In addition to being a useful methodological technique for understanding directionality, a 
cross-lagged approach also provides insights into whether these behaviors truly serve a job 
preservation function in that they reduce subsequent JI. From a COR theory perspective, 
investment of time and energy resources should beget status resources such as stable 
employment (Spurk et al., 2018). Although little research has examined workplace behavior as 
an antecedent to JI, poor performance and acts of counterproductive work behavior have been 
linked to involuntary turnover (Stumpf & Dawley, 1981). In fact, poor performance is inherent in 
definitions of involuntary turnover: “a termination reflects a bad hiring decision that must be 
corrected” (Shaw, Delery, Jenkins, & Gupta, 1998: 513). Other factors, such as relationships 
with superiors, accumulation of expert power, and a person’s experience and qualifications may 
similarly relate to the likelihood of being fired, retained, or even promoted (Serenko & Bontis, 
2016; Wayne, Liden, Kraimer, & Graf, 1999). Although subjective, employees’ perceptions of JI 
have been found to be partly reflective of their objective standings (De Cuyper & De Witte, 
2007). Thus, we anticipated reversed directional effects such that: