Manajemen | Fakultas Ekonomi Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji 2005 10
NON-STANDARD EMPLOYMENT: WHEN
EVEN THE ELITE ARE PRECARIOUS
TUI MCKEOWN∗
T
hemes of marginalisation and disadvantage dominate much of the literature on
non-standard employment and the studies which underlie these themes are generally
restricted to the temporary, casual and part time workforce. This paper presents results
from a survey of 240 professional workers in Australia who have moved into contract
employment arrangements. A key focus of the paper is the establishment of the Push/Pull
Matrix, a tool which analyses individuals’ movement into non-standard employment
by explicitly recognising the relationship between both personal and situational factors.
The survey results suggest that the themes of marginalisation and disadvantage are just
as relevant to the professional contractor as they are to other forms of non-standard
employment.
INTRODUCTION
This paper presents results from a research study of professional workers who have
moved into contract employment arrangements. Although the growth in nonstandard work arrangements is most commonly explained as the result of employer
demand, there is evidence that some workers choose this form of employment
and, are well paid for it. This is especially the case for professionals who work in
such fields as freelance editing, engineering or computer programming. Overall
though, it is the themes of marginalisation and disadvantage which dominate the
literature on non-standard employment and the studies themselves are generally
restricted to the temporary, casual and part-time workers. A common theme of
the 135 studies reviewed as the background to this research can be summarised
in the words of Campbell and Burgess (1993: 87) as one in which
non-standard employment . . . more colourfully characterised as . . .‘marginal’ or ‘nonstandard’ . . . is directly associated with substantive features of disadvantage . . . growth
is directly integrated into a general arrangement of marginalisation and deprivation
. . . non standard is directly equated with sub-standard.
However, adding the professional contractor into this workforce mix shows a
clear polarisation within the literature on non-standard work—with the majority
of such work typified by casual, part-time and temporary workers in precarious
employment on one hand, and smaller, advantaged, professional elite on the other.
This diametric view will be questioned. A further rationale for the specific focus
on the professional contractor is the lack of investigation of this population as
well as the fact that such arrangements are increasing at twice the rate of the well
documented temporary workforce.
∗ Monash
University, Building 11E, Wellington Road, Clayton Campus, Clayton, Vic. 3800,
Australia. Email: tui.mckeown@buseco.monash.edu.au
THE JOURNAL OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, VOL. 47, NO. 3, SEPTEMBER 2005, 276--293
N O N -S T A N D A R D E M P L O Y M E N T
277
The literature available on the place of the professional contractor within the
non-standard workforce, generally presents them as an ‘elite’, privileged group
who experience little of the negatives of working outside the bounds of standard employment. Studies of the occupations covered by professional contracting
range from accountants (Sweet 1994) and computer programmers (Lozano 1989;
Probert & Wajcman 1991) to chief financial controllers (Bridges 1995). An important contribution of these studies is the link that they provide to workforce
projections which identify professional contracting as distinct from most other
non-standard arrangements, being typified by high demand, high skill and short
supply. Overall, such a position would appear to provide a strong negotiating
advantage for the individual professional contractor.
Furthermore, drawing together the literature on self-employment, professionals and contracting provides an extremely optimistic picture of the selfdetermined, self-actualised worker, variously described as a ‘symbolic analyst’
(Reich 1992), an ‘intelligence worker’ (Handy 1989) and a ‘knowledge worker’
(Jones 1995). These terms clearly differentiate the professional contractor workforce and appear to insulate it from many of the negative aspects such as exploitation, marginalisation and lack of control, commonly associated with non-standard
arrangements. However, a notable feature of the studies above is the preponderance of subjects in the middle management to professional levels with skills that
are in high demand and the speculative (rather than the empirical) nature of these
studies (Bogenhold & Staber 1991; Warhurst & Thompson 1998). Indeed, the
contrast presented is so great that it suggests that the professional contractor
might represent the high end of a continuum of non-standard work arrangements
suggested by Milkman (1998). However, there are also indications of very important similarities between the professional contractor and other non-standard
workers—similarities that might in fact be more important than the differences.
This paper draws on one key similarity identified amongst the studies: the
reasons why individuals originally enter non-standard work arrangements. It is
an area dealt with extensively by studies of self-employment and includes factors
such as the push from prior employment through redundancy or lack of career
opportunity, as well as the pull of more money and career autonomy. These factors
are discussed in detail below and contribute to the theoretical framework of the
main research tool used in this analysis, the Push/Pull Matrix.
ELITE OR PRECARIOUS? DERIVING THE PUSH/PULL MATRIX
Examination of the nature of the move into contracting necessitates consideration of the process by which professionals change or move from their previous
jobs. The literature on self-employment and the future of work suggests that professionals initially move into contracting because of advantageous labour market
conditions and for career reasons. Furthermore, a fundamental assertion of much
of the theoretical literature on the future of work is that professionals are well
suited to take advantage of the changes occurring (see, for example, Broadbent
et al. 1997; McRae 1996; Rifkin 1995). There are two assumptions which underlie
these views of the professional contractor. First, it is assumed that a privileged
labour market position is inherent in professional occupations and second, that
278
THE JOURNAL
OF
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
September 2005
these particular professionals have a strong and proactive affiliation with a chosen
‘career’. The notions of labour markets and individual careers obviously do not
operate as completely distinct factors and the push/pull dichotomy is the concept
that unites them.
Briefly, the push/pull dichotomy arises from the classic economic theories of
‘career’ (Knight 1933) and ‘default’ (Schumpeter 1934), and is essentially a selfemployment/paid-employment choice, based on the individual identifying the
opportunities and constraints associated with each. A common view is that professionals have an advantaged labour market position, primarily the result of skill
shortages. These cause employers considerable difficulty in filling vacancies so
that highly paid contract work becomes more prevalent, particularly for the specialist skills associated with information technology, telecommunications and information systems (Atkinson et al. 1996: 27–28). However, there are suggestions
that relative scarcity in some professions might be giving way to surpluses and
job loss through redundancy, these factors are now considered the single major
factor associated with the move from previous employment (EPAC 1996; ABS
2000). Relating this to the professional contractor workforce, it seems reasonable
to assume there will be a proportion of workers who experience increased vulnerability because of redundancy. Furthermore, in common with general studies on
non-standard employment, such moves are likely to be associated with downward
mobility, particularly for childbearing women (Morris 1995; Dex & McCulloch
1997). This notion of contracting as a planned move versus an unplanned move,
links to the concept of career.
Both traditional career theory and the professional worker are the subject of
well-developed bodies of literature, which focus on concepts familiar to writers
on the future of work. One well-known example is where professionals in the first
stage of their career seek self-actualisation and autonomy by changing jobs and/or
organisations (Hall 1986: 113). Called the ‘trial’ stage, it lasts to about 35 years
of age and is followed by a stage of about 15 years characterised by individuals
seeking achievement. After the age of 50, security becomes the dominant concern. More recent studies of professionals have also added an age and stage factor,
proposing ‘routine busting’ as a mid-career identity change process, prompted
by the individual’s increasing desire for autonomy and to provide feedback and
support to others (Mirvis & Hall 1995). Larger scale challenges to the traditional
notion of career also arise as unemployment becomes more common within the
ranks of the professions. Furthermore, although childbearing has typically been
associated with life stages for females, more recent moves towards the granting
of paternity leave and caring for the elderly and disabled within the family home
increasingly challenge the validity of traditional career models. These have been
further weakened by the organisational restructuring of the 1980s and 1990s and
the large-scale retrenchment of management and professionals within organisations (Holbeche 1997; Warhurst & Thompson 1998). Overall, there is evidence
that professionals are increasingly working in an episodic way, covering a particular assignment or contract with a limited or pre-determined duration akin to
a consultancy services model, rather than offering ongoing employment (Burke
1998; Borenstein 2000).
N O N -S T A N D A R D E M P L O Y M E N T
279
Rousseau’s (1995) work on the erosion of the traditional psychological contract of employment, which views loyalty and commitment to an employer as
being exchanged for ongoing employment security, adds another perspective to
the changes occurring in the workplace. Endemic change and individual insecurity no longer have to be examined against supposed norms of stability, upward
mobility and self-actualisation. Removing these constraints provides the basis
for combining the concept of career with that of labour market movements and
asking whether professionals make the move to contracting by choice, because
they are drawn by the intrinsic ‘pull’ of the potential benefits. Bogenhold and
Staber (1991) call this the ‘logic of autonomy’. An alternative is that individuals
are ‘pushed’ into non-standard work as the result of economic necessity—because
of their poor labour market standing or being made redundant. Although this
explains the ‘push’ versus ‘pull’ dichotomy of the self-employment choice, there
is also the explicit assumption that the decision to enter any employment arrangement is the result of rational, calculative decisions. The literature on non-standard
employment makes it clear that often this is not the case and individuals might be
forced to opt for suboptimal arrangements, purely because they have no choice.
This accords with Schumpeter’s (1934) default explanation of self-employment
whereby individuals enter non-standard working arrangements only because standard employment is denied to them. Common reasons for this denial range
from ethnicity and gender to age. The concept of default provides another dimension to the push/pull dichotomy with the suggestion that the factors associated with self-employment can be extrapolated further to reflect structural
constraints. Building on self-employment as a default option, Philips (1962)
concludes that it acts as a defence against unemployment or as a refuge for
groups such as older workers, ethnic groups and the disabled. The difference
between push and default is developed further in Carr’s (1996) examination of selfemployed women who chose self-employment because of structural constraints,
most notably young children and the opportunity for flexibility and greater
autonomy.
Applying the push/pull dichotomy, with the addition of the default dimension,
to professional contracting arrangements provides a diversity of motives for entering this arrangement. Although there might be some individuals who are pushed
into contracting as a defensive move against unemployment, for the most able
and ambitious it might be a proactive career option. Furthermore, moves “may
actually be seen as a default career choice—the result of organisational retrenchment rather than individual initiative” (Carr 1996: 48). It is a distinct option, as it
suggests that some choice or control is exercised, as opposed to the lack of both
for those pushed. Another aspect of the decision process is less explicit, and this
is the timing of the move to contracting, either direct or delayed.
As the focus of this research is the antecedents to the original decision, the
timing of the move to contracting is important. It is this aspect which should
differentiate between individuals who make a planned career move straight into
contracting, perhaps from an ‘incubator’ organisation and those who move for
reasons such as caring for dependents or a return to study (Birley & Westhead
1993). It is a distinction made clear in the matrix structure illustrated in Figure 1.
280
Figure 1
THE JOURNAL
OF
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
September 2005
The Push/Pull Matrix
Left to
Left and later
become a
became a
contractor
contractor
PULL
DEFAULT1
DEFAULT2
PULL
Contractor
by
choice
Contractor
not by
choice
This translates the factors of push, pull and default into a structure that can then be
applied to the arrangement of professional contracting. The temporal dimension
can also be investigated—where we see moving into contracting immediately,
whereas others might pursue other activities or employment beforehand, as well as
whether the move is by choice or not. The factors of timing and the choice are clear
distinctions within the cells illustrated in Figure 1 and establish very clear pairings
of alternatives. Schumpeter’s (1934) classic default explanation of employment is
also expanded to distinguish between two quite distinct alternatives.
The first, the Default1 option, sees the professional contracting by choice, but
some time after the termination of the prior employment arrangement. Reasons
for this profile might be a return to studies or caring for dependents. It is quite
distinct from the Default2 option, where the move into contracting is immediate,
but not by choice. This profile might be the result of organisational outsourcing,
where former employees are transferred to the outsourcing company with the
functions they perform or, forced into becoming ‘pseudo-contractors’ (Casey
et al. 1997).
The matrix structure also makes explicit the potential for employment insecurity within the professional workforce. As noted, the notion of precariousness
impacting on the professional workforce is relatively recent and generally runs
counter to the central themes of the extant literature on the future of work, where
high skill levels, professional status and supposed levels of high demand are assumed to act as a buffer from the fundamental changes impacting other sectors
of the labour market. This also raises the possibility of flows within and between
various work arrangements, and suggests that the plans and motivations for exiting one form of employment arrangement might not be the same as those for
entering another form.
N O N -S T A N D A R D E M P L O Y M E N T
281
One way of looking at the flows into and between non-standard work arrangements are the concepts of the various alternatives operating as a ‘trap’ or a ‘bridge’
(Natti 1993, 1995; Carr 1996; Burgess & Campbell 1998). Interpreting this in the
context of the professional contractor, contracting is a ‘trap’ if it is associated with
unemployment, is involuntary and provides few opportunities for more permanent employment. If the converse should be true, it is a ‘bridge’.
METHODOLOGY
The data for this study derives from the first section of a four-part survey into
the working life of the professional contractor. Three large contracting agencies (CAs) with coverage of more than 18 000 registered professional contractors
provided the distribution point for a total of 500 surveys between them. The
actual number distributed to each CA was based on their current active registrations of professional contractors, which was just less than 800. This discrepancy
between the numbers registered and those actually currently working for each
agency are indicative of the problems of accuracy and access which are a feature
of this workforce. Although each CA attached their own covering letter, the surveys themselves were identical across the three agencies and included return paid
envelopes to allow respondents to reply anonymously.
Of the 500 surveys distributed, 240 (48%) were returned, 179 (75%) from males
and 61 (25%) from females. The results discussed in this paper arise from the first
four items of the survey which establish the individuals exit point from prior
employment as well as the point of entry into contracting. The items provide a
snapshot of the original move as one of either being ‘pushed’ by constraint or
‘pulled’ by opportunity. Together, the four items develop the basic structure of
the Push/Pull Matrix.
RESULTS
The first item established the date of the original move into contracting. Note that
this date might not necessarily be a continuing or unbroken career as a contractor.
As shown in Table 1, the elapsed time since first entering contracting shows some
clear patterns when age and sex of respondent are examined. There appear to be
two distinct, large groupings for males. The first is a cluster of 58 who entered
contracting between 2 and 3 years ago and the second, a group of 60 who entered
between 5 and 15 years ago and account for more than 56% of the total male
population.
Examining the composition of these two clusters shows a fairly general distribution over the age range for the first cluster (of 58), but two concentrated age
groupings within the second (of 60). The 30–39 age range with 5–10 years of
contracting captures 11 of the 39 responses, whereas 40- to 44-year-old males
contracting between 5 and 15 account for 22 of the 60 responses. These two agerelated clusters of males provide evidence of a solid nucleus of male professionals
dedicated to working as contractors and who made this decision in their early to
mid-thirties.
Women also fell into two distinct groupings, one at between 1 and 2 years since
entering and a second at between 4 and 10 years. Although this second grouping
282
Table 1 Entry into contracting by gender and age
Time since first entered contracting
25–29
30–34
35–39
40–44
45–49
50–54
55–59
More than 60
Total
Less than
2 years
1
4
1
1
9
1
4
1
3
3
8
1
2
1
2
Less than
3 years
Less than
4 years
Less than
5 years
5–10
years
11–15
years
16–20
years
More than
20 years
1
3
2
2
2
1
5
1
1
4
3
2
4
3
3
2
4
2
4
2
6
1
1
1
1
2
3
2
1
1
3
2
1
2
2
5
2
1
5
2
5
1
10
1
11
15
7
22
32
11
43
26
7
33
1
2
10
6
11
6
4
1
5
7
1
3
2
11
1
1
2
13
10
23
1
1
2
4
1
7
5
12
5
6
1
1
39
15
54
21
4
55
8
1
9
8
0
8
Total
1
2
20
4
12
8
27
19
49
13
12
9
26
1
28
5
4
0
179
61
240
September 2005
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Less than
1 year
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
Less than 24
Less than
6 months
OF
Sex
THE JOURNAL
Age
N O N -S T A N D A R D E M P L O Y M E N T
283
falls in a lower ‘time spent contracting’ option than it did for males, these two
clusters account for 59% of the total female population of the survey. As with the
results for males, females in the first cluster are distributed throughout the age
groups, providing no evidence of a clear entry age into contracting but rather,
suggesting factors other than age might hold more explanatory value for the move.
However, 12 of the 15 females entering 5–10 years ago are aged between 35 and
44, and results from an earlier study indicate that dependent children are a feature
of female professional contractors within this age ranges, so both occupation and
dependents need to be included in the analysis.
The role of gender in explaining the contracting decision is further evidenced
in Table 2, combining occupation, gender and date of entry into contracting. The
main result from this analysis is that only a small proportion of the total population
appear to have a long-term attachment to contracting. Also, the concentration of
males in information technology (IT), business, management and administration
(Bus/Man/Admin) and engineering, clearly the dominant occupations, displays
quite distinct patterns in terms of date of entry into contracting. Of these occupations, Bus/Man/Admin are generally new entrants into the workforce and,
combined with the fact that this occupation represents more than 25% of the
total survey population, suggests that growth might be the result of recent labour
market changes. Whether this is the result of push or pull factors will be examined
later.
Table 2 displays a distinct profile of IT professionals longer-term attachment to
contracting and supports suggestions labour market advantage and occupational
evidence for contracting as a sustainable career. Overall, IT and engineering
support the notion of contracting being an occupational norm in some professions,
but the results for engineering, in particular, also suggest that labour market
opportunity, or other pull forces, might not be as strong as previously.
Although the lower numbers make it difficult to extrapolate, the totally female
occupation of Health and Welfare also shows concentration in the 4–10 years in
contracting. Overall, the results from the survey are suggestive of labour market
explanations for initial moves into contracting in areas of demand, such as in IT
and engineering, but also indicate other factors need to be explored.
PRIOR EMPLOYMENT STATUS
The second survey item focused on employment status immediately before contracting and investigates the possibility of contracting as an alternative to unemployment or, other non-standard forms of employment. Table 3 shows nearly half
of respondents (219) were in traditional full-time, permanent employment before
contracting. Contrary to many studies on non-standard work, unemployment
appears to play a very minor role for the professional. However, the literature
suggests that even the perceived threat or potential for unemployment can be a
powerful motivator in the move into non-standard employment.
Although most respondents were traditionally employed before contracting,
many concurrently held various non-standard jobs. The concept of dual or multiple job-holding present difficulties because, although the overall level of involvement in non-standard forms of employment is consistent with Australian Bureau
284
Table 2 Entry into contracting by occupation and gender
Time since first entered contracting
Occupation
6
3
1
1
4
1
5
3
6
10
2
12
4
11
3
4
2
3
3
2
1
1
3
1
1
4
3
3
1
43
1
3
2
22
2
1
5
2
3
1
6
2
7
1
4
6
1
1
2
1
2
2
1
18
23
54
1
32
12
8
4
3
4
3
1
1
9
2
4
1
2
7
6
1
1
25
9
8
5
0
25
3
47
14
53
12
0
17
2
6
34
10
1
238
Two respondents who were ‘unsure’ of their occupation have been omitted. Note: Totals include data omitted within the body of the table because of the small sample size.
September 2005
1
1
11
3
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
∗
1
OF
Male
Female
Arch./Draught/Building Male
Female
Bus./Man./Admin.
Male
Female
IT
Male
Female
Health and Welfare
Male
Female
Education
Male
Female
Engineers
Male
Female
Accountant
Male
Female
Total
THE JOURNAL
Scientist
Less than Less than Less than Less than Less than Less than 5–10 11–15 15–20 More than
Gender 6 months 1 year
2 years
3 years
4 years
5 years years years years 20 years Total
285
N O N -S T A N D A R D E M P L O Y M E N T
Table 3 Prior employment status
Full-time, temporary
Full-time, permanent
Full-time, casual
Part-time, temporary
Part-time, permanent
Part-time, casual
Self-employed
Caring for dependants
Unemployed
Other
Total
No. responses
Percentage of responses
30
219
35
32
25
74
33
10
3
17
478
6.3
45.8
7.3
6.7
5.2
15.5
6.9
2.1
0.6
3.6
100
Note: Some individuals were in multiple employment arrangements before contracting.
of Statistics (ABS) estimations of 48% (Barnes et al. 1999), ABS data deals with
employment alternatives as distinct categories rather than allowing individuals to
select the multiple options allowable in this research. Confirmation of the importance of multiple working arrangements comes from Bryson and White’s (1996,
1997) studies of self-employment operating as a period of transition before individuals fully committing to the one arrangement. It might be a ‘try before you
buy’ option for individuals or, as data from the development stage of this research
indicated, a safety net guaranteeing financial commitments can be met or allowing
the pursuit of real or ‘other’ interests at reduced risk.
Overall, the results from Table 3 offer support for the view that professionals
are moving into contracting by choice—pulled by opportunities offered rather
than pushed by constraints such as unemployment or from marginal positions of
employment. The accuracy of this perception is examined in detail in the next
item on choice and timing of the initial move into contracting.
The nature of the move into contracting
The results illustrated in Table 4 are the most complex presented here, but arose
from the very simple question; ‘Which of the following would best describe your
move to contracting?’ The options provided were set out in such a way as to
separate the choice/not by choice and delayed/direct routes into contracting.
These alternatives make explicit the interaction between choice and the timing of
entry in the individuals’ move into professional contracting, and clearly show the
usefulness of the Push/Pull Matrix structure as a tool for examining non-standard
work arrangements.
Overall, although contracting by choice accounts for 124 (30%) of respondents
and dominates the results, there are a significant group who are not contracting because they wish to. Furthermore, the ‘forced move’ option of Default2 is
286
THE JOURNAL
OF
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
September 2005
Table 4 The Push/Pull Matrix
Contractor
by choice
(N = 20)
Contractor
not by choice
(N = 18)
Totals
∗
Left prior work
arrangement to
become a contractor
(N = 22)
Left prior work
arrangement and later
became a contractor
(N = 13)
Total
Pull
(N = 66∗ )
Default1
(N = 38∗ )
By choice
(N = 124∗ )
Default2
(N = 11∗ )
Push
(N = 46∗ )
No choice
(N = 75∗ )
Direct entry
(N = 99)
Delayed entry
(N = 97)
Total of 240
respondents
Item significant at the P < 0.05 level.
significant in its own right, but was not expected to feature at all for this workforce. Timing of entry into contracting also appears to play a more important
role than anticipated with major differences emerging within all four quadrants.
The distinct profiles within Table 5 confirm the ability of the matrix structure
to explain professionals’ movement into contracting with the examination of the
factors which underlay each of the main quadrants. The Pull sector corresponds
with the notion of a professional elite common to literature on the future of work.
Characteristics of the well-paid, self-actualised symbolic analyst or knowledge
worker are clear, but the concept of such work being a ‘professional norm’ clearly
begs the question of what professions and why?
Similarly, the combined reason which lies behind the Default2 quadrant is
suggestive of the pseudo-contractor scenario noted in the labour law literature and
generally associated with the lower end of the labour market. It almost certainly
implies a group of professionals experiencing reduced labour market power and
even decline, especially if associated with one industry or profession. The Default2
sector profile is clearly one of precarious employment where contracting is both
not the arrangement of choice and often motivated by involuntarily redundancy.
The results of the Push sector conform to the more traditional profile of the
non-standard worker with professionals entering contracting because of redundancy, a lack of career prospects or because it was as the best option available.
As with Default2, the precariousness of employment for professionals is again
underscored by the involuntary nature of the move and the perceived lack of options. This profile has more in common with the disadvantaged and marginalised
worker familiar to the literature on non-standard employment rather than the
elite expected in the professional contract workforce.
There is, however, an interesting mid-point that seems to be provided in the
profile of the Default1 option. Here, the negative factor of redundancy from the
Table 5 Items underlying the Push/Pull Matrix
Left prior work
arrangement to
become a contractor
Left prior work
arrangement and later
became a contractor
Pull
Always wanted to be own boss∗∗
More money∗∗
Professional norm∗∗
Default1
Work/family balance∗∗
Flexible lifestyle∗∗
Voluntary redundancy∗∗
Contractor not
by choice
Default2
No one reason explains the move—but
combinations do
Involuntary redundancy and
business with others∗∗
Direct entry
Always wanted∗∗
To be own boss∗∗
More money∗∗
Professional norm∗∗
Business with others∗∗
Push
Involuntary redundancy∗∗
Lack of career prospects∗∗
Best option∗∗
Delayed entry
Involuntary redundancy∗∗
Lack of career prospects∗∗
Voluntary redundancy∗∗
Best option∗∗
Balance∗∗
∗
By choice
Always wanted to be own boss∗∗
More money∗∗
Professional norm∗∗
Other reasons∗
No choice
Involuntary redundancy∗∗
Lack of career prospects∗∗
Best option∗
N O N -S T A N D A R D E M P L O Y M E N T
Contractor
by choice
Item significant at the 0.005 level; ∗∗ Item significant at the 0.001 level.
287
288
THE JOURNAL
OF
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
September 2005
prior employment arrangement combines with the positives of work/life balance
and a flexible lifestyle. The results presented in Tables 4 and 5 justify the distinction made in this research between voluntary and involuntary redundancy, as
voluntary moves are significantly linked to Default1, although involuntary was
linked to Default2 and Push options. Thus, individuals who described their move
into contracting via a path of voluntary redundancy appear to see it as a career
opportunity. More generally, direct and voluntary moves into contracting are
more likely to be motivated by money, whereas delayed but voluntary moves are
made in order to achieve a work/family balance and as the best option for lifestyle
reasons.
Table 6 takes the profiles developed above a step further with details of gender,
occupation, age, marital status and dependents. Although all these demographic
variables could be expected to confound the ability to provide clear patterns, the
matrix structure appears quite robust and, as Table 6 shows, produces distinct profiles. First, there are the significant differences between males and females when
the options are broken down into individual items. Generally, males move into
contracting for financial reasons, whereas females use it to achieve a ‘work/family
balance’ because they see contracting as the ‘best option’ for ‘lifestyle’ reasons.
Females also tend to enter from the route of voluntary redundancy.
The distinctions made within the two default options are clearer in Table 6
when examined in terms of individual options. ‘Employer request’ is concentrated
in Default1, a result difficult to explain until put in the context of sex and dependents where it emerges as related to married females with children (balancing work
and children). The Default1 option appears to be interpreted by respondents as
choice rather than coercion in that ‘employer request’ has positive connotations,
providing an opportunity not offered in traditional employment. Returning to
the language of the title of this paper, Default1 emerges as a modified form of
contracting for the professional elite, whereas Default2 typifies the precariousness and lack of choice more commonly associated with the most marginal and
disadvantaged of the non-standard workforce.
Marital status also produces quite discrete profiles within the matrix. First, the
key reasons single males, as distinct from single females, entered contracting were
voluntary redundancy, the lack of career prospects and employer request, but the
latter was also an important explanation for married females. Single females, however, entered primarily because of a desire to have their ‘own business’; the only
distinct group for this option. Similarly, married females, produce a distinct profile, entering contracting because they see it as the ‘best option’, for ‘work/family
balance’ and for ‘lifestyle’ reasons as well from voluntary redundancy. All of these
factors were significant at the alpha
EVEN THE ELITE ARE PRECARIOUS
TUI MCKEOWN∗
T
hemes of marginalisation and disadvantage dominate much of the literature on
non-standard employment and the studies which underlie these themes are generally
restricted to the temporary, casual and part time workforce. This paper presents results
from a survey of 240 professional workers in Australia who have moved into contract
employment arrangements. A key focus of the paper is the establishment of the Push/Pull
Matrix, a tool which analyses individuals’ movement into non-standard employment
by explicitly recognising the relationship between both personal and situational factors.
The survey results suggest that the themes of marginalisation and disadvantage are just
as relevant to the professional contractor as they are to other forms of non-standard
employment.
INTRODUCTION
This paper presents results from a research study of professional workers who have
moved into contract employment arrangements. Although the growth in nonstandard work arrangements is most commonly explained as the result of employer
demand, there is evidence that some workers choose this form of employment
and, are well paid for it. This is especially the case for professionals who work in
such fields as freelance editing, engineering or computer programming. Overall
though, it is the themes of marginalisation and disadvantage which dominate the
literature on non-standard employment and the studies themselves are generally
restricted to the temporary, casual and part-time workers. A common theme of
the 135 studies reviewed as the background to this research can be summarised
in the words of Campbell and Burgess (1993: 87) as one in which
non-standard employment . . . more colourfully characterised as . . .‘marginal’ or ‘nonstandard’ . . . is directly associated with substantive features of disadvantage . . . growth
is directly integrated into a general arrangement of marginalisation and deprivation
. . . non standard is directly equated with sub-standard.
However, adding the professional contractor into this workforce mix shows a
clear polarisation within the literature on non-standard work—with the majority
of such work typified by casual, part-time and temporary workers in precarious
employment on one hand, and smaller, advantaged, professional elite on the other.
This diametric view will be questioned. A further rationale for the specific focus
on the professional contractor is the lack of investigation of this population as
well as the fact that such arrangements are increasing at twice the rate of the well
documented temporary workforce.
∗ Monash
University, Building 11E, Wellington Road, Clayton Campus, Clayton, Vic. 3800,
Australia. Email: tui.mckeown@buseco.monash.edu.au
THE JOURNAL OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, VOL. 47, NO. 3, SEPTEMBER 2005, 276--293
N O N -S T A N D A R D E M P L O Y M E N T
277
The literature available on the place of the professional contractor within the
non-standard workforce, generally presents them as an ‘elite’, privileged group
who experience little of the negatives of working outside the bounds of standard employment. Studies of the occupations covered by professional contracting
range from accountants (Sweet 1994) and computer programmers (Lozano 1989;
Probert & Wajcman 1991) to chief financial controllers (Bridges 1995). An important contribution of these studies is the link that they provide to workforce
projections which identify professional contracting as distinct from most other
non-standard arrangements, being typified by high demand, high skill and short
supply. Overall, such a position would appear to provide a strong negotiating
advantage for the individual professional contractor.
Furthermore, drawing together the literature on self-employment, professionals and contracting provides an extremely optimistic picture of the selfdetermined, self-actualised worker, variously described as a ‘symbolic analyst’
(Reich 1992), an ‘intelligence worker’ (Handy 1989) and a ‘knowledge worker’
(Jones 1995). These terms clearly differentiate the professional contractor workforce and appear to insulate it from many of the negative aspects such as exploitation, marginalisation and lack of control, commonly associated with non-standard
arrangements. However, a notable feature of the studies above is the preponderance of subjects in the middle management to professional levels with skills that
are in high demand and the speculative (rather than the empirical) nature of these
studies (Bogenhold & Staber 1991; Warhurst & Thompson 1998). Indeed, the
contrast presented is so great that it suggests that the professional contractor
might represent the high end of a continuum of non-standard work arrangements
suggested by Milkman (1998). However, there are also indications of very important similarities between the professional contractor and other non-standard
workers—similarities that might in fact be more important than the differences.
This paper draws on one key similarity identified amongst the studies: the
reasons why individuals originally enter non-standard work arrangements. It is
an area dealt with extensively by studies of self-employment and includes factors
such as the push from prior employment through redundancy or lack of career
opportunity, as well as the pull of more money and career autonomy. These factors
are discussed in detail below and contribute to the theoretical framework of the
main research tool used in this analysis, the Push/Pull Matrix.
ELITE OR PRECARIOUS? DERIVING THE PUSH/PULL MATRIX
Examination of the nature of the move into contracting necessitates consideration of the process by which professionals change or move from their previous
jobs. The literature on self-employment and the future of work suggests that professionals initially move into contracting because of advantageous labour market
conditions and for career reasons. Furthermore, a fundamental assertion of much
of the theoretical literature on the future of work is that professionals are well
suited to take advantage of the changes occurring (see, for example, Broadbent
et al. 1997; McRae 1996; Rifkin 1995). There are two assumptions which underlie
these views of the professional contractor. First, it is assumed that a privileged
labour market position is inherent in professional occupations and second, that
278
THE JOURNAL
OF
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
September 2005
these particular professionals have a strong and proactive affiliation with a chosen
‘career’. The notions of labour markets and individual careers obviously do not
operate as completely distinct factors and the push/pull dichotomy is the concept
that unites them.
Briefly, the push/pull dichotomy arises from the classic economic theories of
‘career’ (Knight 1933) and ‘default’ (Schumpeter 1934), and is essentially a selfemployment/paid-employment choice, based on the individual identifying the
opportunities and constraints associated with each. A common view is that professionals have an advantaged labour market position, primarily the result of skill
shortages. These cause employers considerable difficulty in filling vacancies so
that highly paid contract work becomes more prevalent, particularly for the specialist skills associated with information technology, telecommunications and information systems (Atkinson et al. 1996: 27–28). However, there are suggestions
that relative scarcity in some professions might be giving way to surpluses and
job loss through redundancy, these factors are now considered the single major
factor associated with the move from previous employment (EPAC 1996; ABS
2000). Relating this to the professional contractor workforce, it seems reasonable
to assume there will be a proportion of workers who experience increased vulnerability because of redundancy. Furthermore, in common with general studies on
non-standard employment, such moves are likely to be associated with downward
mobility, particularly for childbearing women (Morris 1995; Dex & McCulloch
1997). This notion of contracting as a planned move versus an unplanned move,
links to the concept of career.
Both traditional career theory and the professional worker are the subject of
well-developed bodies of literature, which focus on concepts familiar to writers
on the future of work. One well-known example is where professionals in the first
stage of their career seek self-actualisation and autonomy by changing jobs and/or
organisations (Hall 1986: 113). Called the ‘trial’ stage, it lasts to about 35 years
of age and is followed by a stage of about 15 years characterised by individuals
seeking achievement. After the age of 50, security becomes the dominant concern. More recent studies of professionals have also added an age and stage factor,
proposing ‘routine busting’ as a mid-career identity change process, prompted
by the individual’s increasing desire for autonomy and to provide feedback and
support to others (Mirvis & Hall 1995). Larger scale challenges to the traditional
notion of career also arise as unemployment becomes more common within the
ranks of the professions. Furthermore, although childbearing has typically been
associated with life stages for females, more recent moves towards the granting
of paternity leave and caring for the elderly and disabled within the family home
increasingly challenge the validity of traditional career models. These have been
further weakened by the organisational restructuring of the 1980s and 1990s and
the large-scale retrenchment of management and professionals within organisations (Holbeche 1997; Warhurst & Thompson 1998). Overall, there is evidence
that professionals are increasingly working in an episodic way, covering a particular assignment or contract with a limited or pre-determined duration akin to
a consultancy services model, rather than offering ongoing employment (Burke
1998; Borenstein 2000).
N O N -S T A N D A R D E M P L O Y M E N T
279
Rousseau’s (1995) work on the erosion of the traditional psychological contract of employment, which views loyalty and commitment to an employer as
being exchanged for ongoing employment security, adds another perspective to
the changes occurring in the workplace. Endemic change and individual insecurity no longer have to be examined against supposed norms of stability, upward
mobility and self-actualisation. Removing these constraints provides the basis
for combining the concept of career with that of labour market movements and
asking whether professionals make the move to contracting by choice, because
they are drawn by the intrinsic ‘pull’ of the potential benefits. Bogenhold and
Staber (1991) call this the ‘logic of autonomy’. An alternative is that individuals
are ‘pushed’ into non-standard work as the result of economic necessity—because
of their poor labour market standing or being made redundant. Although this
explains the ‘push’ versus ‘pull’ dichotomy of the self-employment choice, there
is also the explicit assumption that the decision to enter any employment arrangement is the result of rational, calculative decisions. The literature on non-standard
employment makes it clear that often this is not the case and individuals might be
forced to opt for suboptimal arrangements, purely because they have no choice.
This accords with Schumpeter’s (1934) default explanation of self-employment
whereby individuals enter non-standard working arrangements only because standard employment is denied to them. Common reasons for this denial range
from ethnicity and gender to age. The concept of default provides another dimension to the push/pull dichotomy with the suggestion that the factors associated with self-employment can be extrapolated further to reflect structural
constraints. Building on self-employment as a default option, Philips (1962)
concludes that it acts as a defence against unemployment or as a refuge for
groups such as older workers, ethnic groups and the disabled. The difference
between push and default is developed further in Carr’s (1996) examination of selfemployed women who chose self-employment because of structural constraints,
most notably young children and the opportunity for flexibility and greater
autonomy.
Applying the push/pull dichotomy, with the addition of the default dimension,
to professional contracting arrangements provides a diversity of motives for entering this arrangement. Although there might be some individuals who are pushed
into contracting as a defensive move against unemployment, for the most able
and ambitious it might be a proactive career option. Furthermore, moves “may
actually be seen as a default career choice—the result of organisational retrenchment rather than individual initiative” (Carr 1996: 48). It is a distinct option, as it
suggests that some choice or control is exercised, as opposed to the lack of both
for those pushed. Another aspect of the decision process is less explicit, and this
is the timing of the move to contracting, either direct or delayed.
As the focus of this research is the antecedents to the original decision, the
timing of the move to contracting is important. It is this aspect which should
differentiate between individuals who make a planned career move straight into
contracting, perhaps from an ‘incubator’ organisation and those who move for
reasons such as caring for dependents or a return to study (Birley & Westhead
1993). It is a distinction made clear in the matrix structure illustrated in Figure 1.
280
Figure 1
THE JOURNAL
OF
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
September 2005
The Push/Pull Matrix
Left to
Left and later
become a
became a
contractor
contractor
PULL
DEFAULT1
DEFAULT2
PULL
Contractor
by
choice
Contractor
not by
choice
This translates the factors of push, pull and default into a structure that can then be
applied to the arrangement of professional contracting. The temporal dimension
can also be investigated—where we see moving into contracting immediately,
whereas others might pursue other activities or employment beforehand, as well as
whether the move is by choice or not. The factors of timing and the choice are clear
distinctions within the cells illustrated in Figure 1 and establish very clear pairings
of alternatives. Schumpeter’s (1934) classic default explanation of employment is
also expanded to distinguish between two quite distinct alternatives.
The first, the Default1 option, sees the professional contracting by choice, but
some time after the termination of the prior employment arrangement. Reasons
for this profile might be a return to studies or caring for dependents. It is quite
distinct from the Default2 option, where the move into contracting is immediate,
but not by choice. This profile might be the result of organisational outsourcing,
where former employees are transferred to the outsourcing company with the
functions they perform or, forced into becoming ‘pseudo-contractors’ (Casey
et al. 1997).
The matrix structure also makes explicit the potential for employment insecurity within the professional workforce. As noted, the notion of precariousness
impacting on the professional workforce is relatively recent and generally runs
counter to the central themes of the extant literature on the future of work, where
high skill levels, professional status and supposed levels of high demand are assumed to act as a buffer from the fundamental changes impacting other sectors
of the labour market. This also raises the possibility of flows within and between
various work arrangements, and suggests that the plans and motivations for exiting one form of employment arrangement might not be the same as those for
entering another form.
N O N -S T A N D A R D E M P L O Y M E N T
281
One way of looking at the flows into and between non-standard work arrangements are the concepts of the various alternatives operating as a ‘trap’ or a ‘bridge’
(Natti 1993, 1995; Carr 1996; Burgess & Campbell 1998). Interpreting this in the
context of the professional contractor, contracting is a ‘trap’ if it is associated with
unemployment, is involuntary and provides few opportunities for more permanent employment. If the converse should be true, it is a ‘bridge’.
METHODOLOGY
The data for this study derives from the first section of a four-part survey into
the working life of the professional contractor. Three large contracting agencies (CAs) with coverage of more than 18 000 registered professional contractors
provided the distribution point for a total of 500 surveys between them. The
actual number distributed to each CA was based on their current active registrations of professional contractors, which was just less than 800. This discrepancy
between the numbers registered and those actually currently working for each
agency are indicative of the problems of accuracy and access which are a feature
of this workforce. Although each CA attached their own covering letter, the surveys themselves were identical across the three agencies and included return paid
envelopes to allow respondents to reply anonymously.
Of the 500 surveys distributed, 240 (48%) were returned, 179 (75%) from males
and 61 (25%) from females. The results discussed in this paper arise from the first
four items of the survey which establish the individuals exit point from prior
employment as well as the point of entry into contracting. The items provide a
snapshot of the original move as one of either being ‘pushed’ by constraint or
‘pulled’ by opportunity. Together, the four items develop the basic structure of
the Push/Pull Matrix.
RESULTS
The first item established the date of the original move into contracting. Note that
this date might not necessarily be a continuing or unbroken career as a contractor.
As shown in Table 1, the elapsed time since first entering contracting shows some
clear patterns when age and sex of respondent are examined. There appear to be
two distinct, large groupings for males. The first is a cluster of 58 who entered
contracting between 2 and 3 years ago and the second, a group of 60 who entered
between 5 and 15 years ago and account for more than 56% of the total male
population.
Examining the composition of these two clusters shows a fairly general distribution over the age range for the first cluster (of 58), but two concentrated age
groupings within the second (of 60). The 30–39 age range with 5–10 years of
contracting captures 11 of the 39 responses, whereas 40- to 44-year-old males
contracting between 5 and 15 account for 22 of the 60 responses. These two agerelated clusters of males provide evidence of a solid nucleus of male professionals
dedicated to working as contractors and who made this decision in their early to
mid-thirties.
Women also fell into two distinct groupings, one at between 1 and 2 years since
entering and a second at between 4 and 10 years. Although this second grouping
282
Table 1 Entry into contracting by gender and age
Time since first entered contracting
25–29
30–34
35–39
40–44
45–49
50–54
55–59
More than 60
Total
Less than
2 years
1
4
1
1
9
1
4
1
3
3
8
1
2
1
2
Less than
3 years
Less than
4 years
Less than
5 years
5–10
years
11–15
years
16–20
years
More than
20 years
1
3
2
2
2
1
5
1
1
4
3
2
4
3
3
2
4
2
4
2
6
1
1
1
1
2
3
2
1
1
3
2
1
2
2
5
2
1
5
2
5
1
10
1
11
15
7
22
32
11
43
26
7
33
1
2
10
6
11
6
4
1
5
7
1
3
2
11
1
1
2
13
10
23
1
1
2
4
1
7
5
12
5
6
1
1
39
15
54
21
4
55
8
1
9
8
0
8
Total
1
2
20
4
12
8
27
19
49
13
12
9
26
1
28
5
4
0
179
61
240
September 2005
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Less than
1 year
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
Less than 24
Less than
6 months
OF
Sex
THE JOURNAL
Age
N O N -S T A N D A R D E M P L O Y M E N T
283
falls in a lower ‘time spent contracting’ option than it did for males, these two
clusters account for 59% of the total female population of the survey. As with the
results for males, females in the first cluster are distributed throughout the age
groups, providing no evidence of a clear entry age into contracting but rather,
suggesting factors other than age might hold more explanatory value for the move.
However, 12 of the 15 females entering 5–10 years ago are aged between 35 and
44, and results from an earlier study indicate that dependent children are a feature
of female professional contractors within this age ranges, so both occupation and
dependents need to be included in the analysis.
The role of gender in explaining the contracting decision is further evidenced
in Table 2, combining occupation, gender and date of entry into contracting. The
main result from this analysis is that only a small proportion of the total population
appear to have a long-term attachment to contracting. Also, the concentration of
males in information technology (IT), business, management and administration
(Bus/Man/Admin) and engineering, clearly the dominant occupations, displays
quite distinct patterns in terms of date of entry into contracting. Of these occupations, Bus/Man/Admin are generally new entrants into the workforce and,
combined with the fact that this occupation represents more than 25% of the
total survey population, suggests that growth might be the result of recent labour
market changes. Whether this is the result of push or pull factors will be examined
later.
Table 2 displays a distinct profile of IT professionals longer-term attachment to
contracting and supports suggestions labour market advantage and occupational
evidence for contracting as a sustainable career. Overall, IT and engineering
support the notion of contracting being an occupational norm in some professions,
but the results for engineering, in particular, also suggest that labour market
opportunity, or other pull forces, might not be as strong as previously.
Although the lower numbers make it difficult to extrapolate, the totally female
occupation of Health and Welfare also shows concentration in the 4–10 years in
contracting. Overall, the results from the survey are suggestive of labour market
explanations for initial moves into contracting in areas of demand, such as in IT
and engineering, but also indicate other factors need to be explored.
PRIOR EMPLOYMENT STATUS
The second survey item focused on employment status immediately before contracting and investigates the possibility of contracting as an alternative to unemployment or, other non-standard forms of employment. Table 3 shows nearly half
of respondents (219) were in traditional full-time, permanent employment before
contracting. Contrary to many studies on non-standard work, unemployment
appears to play a very minor role for the professional. However, the literature
suggests that even the perceived threat or potential for unemployment can be a
powerful motivator in the move into non-standard employment.
Although most respondents were traditionally employed before contracting,
many concurrently held various non-standard jobs. The concept of dual or multiple job-holding present difficulties because, although the overall level of involvement in non-standard forms of employment is consistent with Australian Bureau
284
Table 2 Entry into contracting by occupation and gender
Time since first entered contracting
Occupation
6
3
1
1
4
1
5
3
6
10
2
12
4
11
3
4
2
3
3
2
1
1
3
1
1
4
3
3
1
43
1
3
2
22
2
1
5
2
3
1
6
2
7
1
4
6
1
1
2
1
2
2
1
18
23
54
1
32
12
8
4
3
4
3
1
1
9
2
4
1
2
7
6
1
1
25
9
8
5
0
25
3
47
14
53
12
0
17
2
6
34
10
1
238
Two respondents who were ‘unsure’ of their occupation have been omitted. Note: Totals include data omitted within the body of the table because of the small sample size.
September 2005
1
1
11
3
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
∗
1
OF
Male
Female
Arch./Draught/Building Male
Female
Bus./Man./Admin.
Male
Female
IT
Male
Female
Health and Welfare
Male
Female
Education
Male
Female
Engineers
Male
Female
Accountant
Male
Female
Total
THE JOURNAL
Scientist
Less than Less than Less than Less than Less than Less than 5–10 11–15 15–20 More than
Gender 6 months 1 year
2 years
3 years
4 years
5 years years years years 20 years Total
285
N O N -S T A N D A R D E M P L O Y M E N T
Table 3 Prior employment status
Full-time, temporary
Full-time, permanent
Full-time, casual
Part-time, temporary
Part-time, permanent
Part-time, casual
Self-employed
Caring for dependants
Unemployed
Other
Total
No. responses
Percentage of responses
30
219
35
32
25
74
33
10
3
17
478
6.3
45.8
7.3
6.7
5.2
15.5
6.9
2.1
0.6
3.6
100
Note: Some individuals were in multiple employment arrangements before contracting.
of Statistics (ABS) estimations of 48% (Barnes et al. 1999), ABS data deals with
employment alternatives as distinct categories rather than allowing individuals to
select the multiple options allowable in this research. Confirmation of the importance of multiple working arrangements comes from Bryson and White’s (1996,
1997) studies of self-employment operating as a period of transition before individuals fully committing to the one arrangement. It might be a ‘try before you
buy’ option for individuals or, as data from the development stage of this research
indicated, a safety net guaranteeing financial commitments can be met or allowing
the pursuit of real or ‘other’ interests at reduced risk.
Overall, the results from Table 3 offer support for the view that professionals
are moving into contracting by choice—pulled by opportunities offered rather
than pushed by constraints such as unemployment or from marginal positions of
employment. The accuracy of this perception is examined in detail in the next
item on choice and timing of the initial move into contracting.
The nature of the move into contracting
The results illustrated in Table 4 are the most complex presented here, but arose
from the very simple question; ‘Which of the following would best describe your
move to contracting?’ The options provided were set out in such a way as to
separate the choice/not by choice and delayed/direct routes into contracting.
These alternatives make explicit the interaction between choice and the timing of
entry in the individuals’ move into professional contracting, and clearly show the
usefulness of the Push/Pull Matrix structure as a tool for examining non-standard
work arrangements.
Overall, although contracting by choice accounts for 124 (30%) of respondents
and dominates the results, there are a significant group who are not contracting because they wish to. Furthermore, the ‘forced move’ option of Default2 is
286
THE JOURNAL
OF
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
September 2005
Table 4 The Push/Pull Matrix
Contractor
by choice
(N = 20)
Contractor
not by choice
(N = 18)
Totals
∗
Left prior work
arrangement to
become a contractor
(N = 22)
Left prior work
arrangement and later
became a contractor
(N = 13)
Total
Pull
(N = 66∗ )
Default1
(N = 38∗ )
By choice
(N = 124∗ )
Default2
(N = 11∗ )
Push
(N = 46∗ )
No choice
(N = 75∗ )
Direct entry
(N = 99)
Delayed entry
(N = 97)
Total of 240
respondents
Item significant at the P < 0.05 level.
significant in its own right, but was not expected to feature at all for this workforce. Timing of entry into contracting also appears to play a more important
role than anticipated with major differences emerging within all four quadrants.
The distinct profiles within Table 5 confirm the ability of the matrix structure
to explain professionals’ movement into contracting with the examination of the
factors which underlay each of the main quadrants. The Pull sector corresponds
with the notion of a professional elite common to literature on the future of work.
Characteristics of the well-paid, self-actualised symbolic analyst or knowledge
worker are clear, but the concept of such work being a ‘professional norm’ clearly
begs the question of what professions and why?
Similarly, the combined reason which lies behind the Default2 quadrant is
suggestive of the pseudo-contractor scenario noted in the labour law literature and
generally associated with the lower end of the labour market. It almost certainly
implies a group of professionals experiencing reduced labour market power and
even decline, especially if associated with one industry or profession. The Default2
sector profile is clearly one of precarious employment where contracting is both
not the arrangement of choice and often motivated by involuntarily redundancy.
The results of the Push sector conform to the more traditional profile of the
non-standard worker with professionals entering contracting because of redundancy, a lack of career prospects or because it was as the best option available.
As with Default2, the precariousness of employment for professionals is again
underscored by the involuntary nature of the move and the perceived lack of options. This profile has more in common with the disadvantaged and marginalised
worker familiar to the literature on non-standard employment rather than the
elite expected in the professional contract workforce.
There is, however, an interesting mid-point that seems to be provided in the
profile of the Default1 option. Here, the negative factor of redundancy from the
Table 5 Items underlying the Push/Pull Matrix
Left prior work
arrangement to
become a contractor
Left prior work
arrangement and later
became a contractor
Pull
Always wanted to be own boss∗∗
More money∗∗
Professional norm∗∗
Default1
Work/family balance∗∗
Flexible lifestyle∗∗
Voluntary redundancy∗∗
Contractor not
by choice
Default2
No one reason explains the move—but
combinations do
Involuntary redundancy and
business with others∗∗
Direct entry
Always wanted∗∗
To be own boss∗∗
More money∗∗
Professional norm∗∗
Business with others∗∗
Push
Involuntary redundancy∗∗
Lack of career prospects∗∗
Best option∗∗
Delayed entry
Involuntary redundancy∗∗
Lack of career prospects∗∗
Voluntary redundancy∗∗
Best option∗∗
Balance∗∗
∗
By choice
Always wanted to be own boss∗∗
More money∗∗
Professional norm∗∗
Other reasons∗
No choice
Involuntary redundancy∗∗
Lack of career prospects∗∗
Best option∗
N O N -S T A N D A R D E M P L O Y M E N T
Contractor
by choice
Item significant at the 0.005 level; ∗∗ Item significant at the 0.001 level.
287
288
THE JOURNAL
OF
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
September 2005
prior employment arrangement combines with the positives of work/life balance
and a flexible lifestyle. The results presented in Tables 4 and 5 justify the distinction made in this research between voluntary and involuntary redundancy, as
voluntary moves are significantly linked to Default1, although involuntary was
linked to Default2 and Push options. Thus, individuals who described their move
into contracting via a path of voluntary redundancy appear to see it as a career
opportunity. More generally, direct and voluntary moves into contracting are
more likely to be motivated by money, whereas delayed but voluntary moves are
made in order to achieve a work/family balance and as the best option for lifestyle
reasons.
Table 6 takes the profiles developed above a step further with details of gender,
occupation, age, marital status and dependents. Although all these demographic
variables could be expected to confound the ability to provide clear patterns, the
matrix structure appears quite robust and, as Table 6 shows, produces distinct profiles. First, there are the significant differences between males and females when
the options are broken down into individual items. Generally, males move into
contracting for financial reasons, whereas females use it to achieve a ‘work/family
balance’ because they see contracting as the ‘best option’ for ‘lifestyle’ reasons.
Females also tend to enter from the route of voluntary redundancy.
The distinctions made within the two default options are clearer in Table 6
when examined in terms of individual options. ‘Employer request’ is concentrated
in Default1, a result difficult to explain until put in the context of sex and dependents where it emerges as related to married females with children (balancing work
and children). The Default1 option appears to be interpreted by respondents as
choice rather than coercion in that ‘employer request’ has positive connotations,
providing an opportunity not offered in traditional employment. Returning to
the language of the title of this paper, Default1 emerges as a modified form of
contracting for the professional elite, whereas Default2 typifies the precariousness and lack of choice more commonly associated with the most marginal and
disadvantaged of the non-standard workforce.
Marital status also produces quite discrete profiles within the matrix. First, the
key reasons single males, as distinct from single females, entered contracting were
voluntary redundancy, the lack of career prospects and employer request, but the
latter was also an important explanation for married females. Single females, however, entered primarily because of a desire to have their ‘own business’; the only
distinct group for this option. Similarly, married females, produce a distinct profile, entering contracting because they see it as the ‘best option’, for ‘work/family
balance’ and for ‘lifestyle’ reasons as well from voluntary redundancy. All of these
factors were significant at the alpha