Author: Janet H. Marler , University at Albany - School of Business

Date: 9/06/04

Basic Concepts & Definitions

Alternative work arrangements (AWA) represent employment arrangements that are arranged through an employment intermediary such as a temporary help firm or where the place, time, and quantity of work are potentially unpredictable (Polivka, 1996). This is the definition the Bureau of Labor Statistics uses to identify and measure the prevalence of such arrangements in the US work force. In total about 9% of the U.S. workforce is employed in these arrangements, which include independent contractors, temporary agency workers, on-call workers, and workers provided by contract companies.

The term "alternative work arrangements" is also often used interchangeably with alternative employment arrangements, contingent employment, nonstandard work arrangements, reduced time employment, and flexible work arrangements. Unfortunately these terms are often used inconsistently, which creates some confusion. For example, in work-family research alternative work arrangements often refer to flexible work arrangements [See Encyclopedia entry, Flexible Work Arrangements], whereas in industrial relations and sociological contexts, alternative work arrangements are often used interchangeably with contingent and nonstandard employment. A better label for AWA would be alternative employment arrangements, which suggests both the alternative nature of these arrangements and that the focus is on the type of employment arrangement rather than type of work schedule. Below is a summary of the distinctions and overlaps with alternative work (employment) arrangements.

The BLS defines contingent employment as any job that does not have an explicit or implicit contract for long-term employment (Polivka, 1996). The distinction between contingent work and AWA is contentious. Indeed many researchers have used the definition of AWA as their definition of contingent work or have simply coined new labels such as nonstandard work arrangements (Kalleberg, Reskin, & Hudson, 2000). Conceptual disagreements focus on what characteristic of the work is most important. On the expansive side, there are those who consider contingent employment any work that is peripheral, less economically secure, unstable, or not considered the norm (Belous, 1989; Polvika, Cohany, & Hipple, 2000). Under this definition there is wide overlap with the concept of AWA. In contrast, the narrowest definition (e.g. no implicit long-term contract) comes from the BLS. Under this narrow definition, the BLS reports that about 5% of the workforce is contingent (Hipple, 2001).

Nonstandard work arrangements represent any work arrangement that is other than a standard full-time job and therefore includes part-time employment in otherwise standard work arrangements (Kalleberg, Reskin & Hudson, 2000). Kalleberg, Reskin & Hudson (2000) argue that standard employment arrangements are characterized by the exchange of a worker's labor for monetary compensation from an employer, with work done on a fixed schedule, usually full-time, at the employer's place of business, under the employer's control, and with the mutual expectation of continued employment. Nonstandard work arrangements are also often used interchangeably (and therefore inaccurately according to the BLS) with contingent work, probably because it represents a much larger proportion of the workforce (i.e. 30% for nonstandard vs. 9% for AWA vs. 5% for contingent employment). Essentially nonstandard work comprises AWA plus part-time standard work arrangements.

Reduced-time arrangements [See Encyclopedia entry, Reduced Hours Work/ Part-time Work] generally represent employment arrangements where the hours of work are less than 35 hours a week. About 18% of the workforce is in reduced or part-time work arrangements. About 14% of employees in AWA are also working part time.

Flexible work arrangements allow work to be performed on a reduced hour basis, before or after standard working hours (i.e. 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday), with a variation in schedules, and/or from alternative locations (e.g. telework). Researchers have also used the term "nonstandard employment schedules" (c.f. Cox & Presser, 2000) to describe these work arrangements. It is likely that a significant proportion of independent contractors, temporary agency employees, and contract company employees also perform their work before or after standard working hours; and in different locations, however; there is limited information concerning the percentage overlap between alternative and flexible work arrangements. In general, flexible work arrangements focus on the "when and where" of work, and AWA focus on the "with whom" the employment arrangement is with, which has implications for who determines "the when and where" of the work.

Importance of Topic to Work-Family Studies

Some scholars see growth trends in AWA, as defined above, as responsive to family demographic changes (Albert & Bradley, 1997; Arthur & Rousseau, 1995). With dual-earner households as the statistically normative family structure, alternative employment arrangements offer independence from organizationally based career paths, which are being challenged as outdated and inflexible, especially for dual-earner households (Albert & Bradley, 1997; Bradach, 1997). On the other hand, critics note that independence and flexibility come at a high price. Alternative employment arrangements increase exposure to poor quality jobs, especially for women (Barker & Christensen, 1998; Kalleberg et al., 2000).

The question of whether workers "choose" and prefer part-time to standard employment has been widely explored (Blank, 1990; Blossfeld & Hakim, 1996; Meiksins & Whalley, 2002; Negrey, 1991; Tilly, 1996) but less is specifically known about whether AWA are a solution to work-family demands faced by dual-earner households.

In our culture, women are socialized to be homemakers and men to be family financial providers (Bernard, 1981; Moen, 2001). Marler & Moen (2003) using a national probability sample of independent contractors and temporary help agency employees found that those in AWA still reflect normative beliefs about paid work, unpaid family care work, and gender. Qualitative research also highlights the importance of gender-role orientation and stereotypes in shaping attitudes toward temporary employment (e.g., Rogers, 2000), or of reduced-time arrangements of female professional independent contractors (e.g., Meiksins & Whalley, 2002). Loscocco (1997) interviewed 30 self-employed individuals to understand to what extent, individuals away from the constraints of traditional employment reenacted or diverged from traditional gender roles. Her results showed that gender is a deeply embedded feature of work roles even apart from traditional structures. Men enacted work schedules that mirrored standard wage and salary employment. Married women worked around their family demands. Thus while self-employment offered the possibility for flexibility and autonomy, men and women exhibited gendered responses consistent with male breadwinner and female caretaker expectations.

State of the Body of Knowledge

Despite the uniformity connoted by the use of a single term, recent descriptive research on AWA reveals significant diversity within and across individuals in alternative work arrangements (see www.bls.gov). A brief demographic overview of each type of AWA drawn from this descriptive research, clearly illustrates the diversity.

Independent contractors are the largest group of workers in alternative work arrangements, representing about two thirds of those in alternative work arrangements and 6.5% of the entire workforce. Independent contractors are more likely to be white, male, over the age of 35, and hold a bachelor's degree. Part time work is also more common among independent contractors. Twenty-five percent of independent contractors worked part time compared to with 18% of workers in regular work arrangements.

Temporary help agency workers are those workers who are paid by a temporary help agency and at any point in time represent approximately 1% of the workforce. Temporary help agency employees are more likely to be women, black or Hispanic, and under the age of 35 years. Temporary help agency workers are also over represented in the manufacturing and services industries and in the administrative support and laborer occupations. In the last twenty years, this arrangement has been the fastest growing segment of the workforce, estimated at a rate of 11% per year compared to the regular workforce growth rate of 2% (Segal & Sullivan, 1997). This growth rate has slowed considerably since the mid-1990s (Polvika et al., 2000).

On-call workers are those workers who are only called into work when needed, for example substitute teachers or construction day laborers. They are the second largest category of alternative work arrangements. They comprise about 1.7 % of the workforce (Polvika et al., 2000). On-call workers are more likely to be under the age of 25, and not surprisingly, to work part time.

Workers provided by contract companies are individuals working for a contract company, and who usually work for only one customer and usually work at the customer's worksite. Individuals in these work arrangements are predominately male and less likely to work part time. The majority of contract company workers were employed by the services and manufacturing industries. Examples include computer programmers, food service workers and security guards. This segment of the work force is growing rapidly as outsourcing becomes more accepted; however, it is still the smallest of the alternative work classifications, representing about .6 % of the workforce.

Since the growth trend in alternative and contingent employment first gained attention in the mid 1980s (Belous, 1989), researchers have applied different theoretical perspectives to explain the trend. Applying dual labor market theory (Doeringer & Piore, 1971), some scholars fear that the increases in AWA indicate that secondary labor market dynamics are spreading into the economy's core. These trends are troubling because jobs in secondary labor markets are less stable and marked by lower wages compared to those in primary labor markets (Kunda, Barley, & Evans, 2002). Several ethnographies of temporary work (McAllister, 1998; Parker, 1994; Rogers, 2000), reduced-time (Negrey, 1991; Tilly, 1996), and contract work (Barker & Christensen, 1998) highlight the secondary labor market characteristics of jobs in AWA. Kalleberg, Reskin, & Hudson's (2000) quantitative analyses also reveals that nonstandard employment strongly increases workers exposure to poor quality jobs that include low wages and no benefits.

Economists explain increases in AWA in terms of changes in demand and supply. Demand changes result from changing employer preferences and product markets. Labor supply changes are driven by changes in wages and individual preferences for work (Blau, Ferber, & Winkler, 1997). On the demand side, increases in AWA are a consequence of product market volatility and increased foreign competition (Abraham, 1988; Golden, 1996), decreased union influence (Barker & Christensen, 1998; Capelli et al., 1997) and increasing employee benefits costs (Abraham & Taylor, 1996; Houseman, 1997). On the supply side, employee preferences such as those of married women in the workplace who desire more flexible schedules (Golden & Appelbaum, 1992; Laird & Williams, 1996; Loscocco, 1997) and individuals who retire and reenter the workforce as independent contractors (Kohli, 1994) explain the increases in the supply of individuals rather than increases in wages. The empirical evidence indicates that demand factors (uncertainty in product markets; decline in unions, increasing costs of employee benefits) and supply factors (growth of the female labor supply) both coincide with the growth of alternative work arrangements (Aronson, 1991; Golden, 1996; Laird & Williams, 1996). Those interested in work and family research have examined the consequences (e.g. lower wages for married women) of apparent preferences for alternative employment (Hundley, 2003; Rothstein, 1996).

Research by organizational scientists suggests that changing strategies and transaction costs (Lepak & Snell, 1999) explain the increasing tendency for organizations to externalize employees (Pfeffer & Barron, 1988). Coincident with this shift in staffing policy, researchers have also noted a shift in career norms (Arthur & Rousseau, 1995). As job security and promotional opportunities within larger organizations decline, individuals are increasingly accepting a new conception of career (Marler, Barringer, & Milkovich, 2002). Boundaryless careers represent a different conception of job security where an individual's job security is validated by the external labor market and not within an organization's internal labor market. Several ethnographic studies depict this emerging free-market agency phenomenon, which appears to occur principally among the higher skilled in AWA (See Kunda et al., 2002; Meiksins & Whalley, 2002). These recent studies break the mold of earlier ethnographies that have focused exclusively on how individuals in AWA are exploited because of spreading secondary labor market characteristics.

Implications for Policy and Practice

Future research on AWA would benefit first and foremost from greater clarification and agreement on terminology with respect to terms such as alternative work arrangements, flexible work arrangements, nonstandard work arrangements and contingent work. The study of AWA requires a multidisciplinary perspective consequently, if we are to advance our knowledge across disciplines it is critical we develop consistency in how we define and label key concepts.

Future research will benefit from taking a multi-disciplinary perspective. For example, more studies are needed that consider the effect of family structure such as the division of household labor on the preferences and attitudes of those who work in alternative work arrangements. Along these lines, Marler, Tolbert, & Milkovich's (2003) exploratory study of dual earner couples in alternative work arrangements found that the wives, in couples where the wives worked in alternative employment and husbands in standard employment, reported feeling significantly more successful at balancing work and family than wives in couples where both worked in standard employment arrangements. On the other hand, the reverse was true for men in alternative employment with wives in standard employment. Marler, Tolbert, & Milkovich note, however, that alternative employment arrangements cannot be summarily described as either effective or ineffective strategies for managing work and family demands of dual earners. There are multi-level effects operating to shape the preferences and consequent voluntary labor supply decisions of those in AWA.

From an organizational perspective, given the diversity across the types of alternative employment arrangements, more studies are needed to understand what factors account for the differences and similarities across the classifications. For example, studies that explore the determinants and consequences of work structures and institutions, such as occupations (clerical, technical writing, programmers) and industries (high technology, construction, entertainment) that are favorable for AWA might be fruitful. This line of research would also benefit if it extended across all four types of AWA.

From a policy perspective, there is clearly a need to reconsider labor policies in the light of changing employment arrangements. Current US labor laws, primarily crafted in the 1930s and 1940s, are premised on a "standard" employment arrangement and employer-employee relationship. Consequently, individuals in AWA are less likely to have the protections afforded by the Fair Labor Standards Act, Civil Rights Act, Age Discrimination Employment Act, Family Medical Leave Act and the Occupational Safety and Hazards Act (Carnevale, Jennings, & Eisenmann, 1998). They are also less likely to participate in medical and pension benefits provided by employers to their employees (Houseman, 1997). Several scholars have attempted to address these policy issues (See Barker & Christensen, 1998 and Carre, Ferber, Golden & Herzenberg, 2000). There are however challenges to crafting new policies. One is to reach consensus and consistency over definitions of the various employment relationships and arrangements. Another and more compelling challenge is how to address such a diverse group of workers in an equitable way.

References

Abraham, K. G. (1988). Flexible staffing arrangements and employer's short-term adjustment strategies. In R. A. Hart (Ed.), Employment, unemployment and labor utilization (pp. 288-311). Boston: Unwin Hyman.

Abraham, K. G., & Taylor, S. K. (1996). Firms' use of outside contractors: Theory and evidence. Journal of Labor Economics, 14(3), 394-424.

Albert, S., & Bradley, K. (1997). Managing knowledge: Experts, agencies, and organizations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Aronson, R. L. (1991). Self employment. Ithaca: ILR Press.

Arthur, M. B., & Rousseau, D. M. (1995). Introduction: The boundaryless career as a new employment principle. In M. B. Arthur & D. M. Rousseau (Eds.), The boundaryless career as a new employment principle (pp. 3-20). New York: Oxford University Press.

Belous, R. (1989). The contingent economy: The growth of the temporary, part-time and subcontracted workforce. Washington D.C.: The National Planning Association.

Bernard, J. (1981). The good-provider role. American Psychologist, 36(1), 1-12.

Blank, R. (1990). Are part-time jobs bad jobs? In G. Burtless (Ed.), A future of lousy jobs? Washington DC: Brookings Institution.

Blau, F., Ferber, M., & Winkler, A. (1997). The economics of women, men and work. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

Blossfeld, H.-P., & Hakim, C. (1996). Part-time work in the United States of America. In H.P. Blossfeld & C. Hakim (Eds.), Between equalization and marginalization (Chapter 12): Oxford University Press.

Bradach, J. l. (1997). Flexibility: The new social contract between individuals and firms? Unpublished Working Paper, Harvard University, Cambridge.

Capelli, D., Bassi, L., Katz, H., Knoke, D., Osterman, P., & Useem, M. (1997). Change at work. New York: Oxford University Press.

Carre, F., Ferber, M., Golden, L., & Hersenberg, S. (2000). Nonstandard work: The nature and challenges of changing employment arrangements. Champaign: Industrial Relations Research Association.

Carnevale, A. P., Jennings, L. A., & Eisenmann, J. M. (1998). Contingent workers and employment law. In K. Barker & K. Christensen (Eds.), Contingent work (pp. 281-305). New York: Oxford University Press.

Cox, A. G. & Presser, H. B. (2000). Nonstandard employment schedules among American mothers. In Parcel, Toby L. & Cornfield, Daniel B. (Eds.), Work & family (pp. 97-130). Sage Publications Inc.

Doeringer, P., & Piore, M. J. (1971). Internal labor markets and manpower analysis. Lexington: DC Heath.

Ellingson, J. E., Gruys, M. L., & Sackett, P. R. (1998). Factors related to the satisfaction and performance of temporary employees. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(6), 913-921.

Farber, H. S. (1997). The changing face of job loss in the United States, 1981-1995. Unpublished manuscript, Princeton.

Feldman, D., Doerpinghaus, H. I., & Turnley, W. H. (1995). Employee reactions to temporary jobs. Journal of Managerial Issues, 7(2), 127-139.

Golden, L. (1996). The expansion of temporary help employment in the US 1982-1992: A test of alternative economic explanations. Applied Economics, 28, 1127-1141.

Golden, L., & Appelbaum, E. (1992). What was driving the 1982-88 boom in temporary employment? American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 51(4), 473-493.

Houseman, S. (1997). Temporary, part-time, and contract employment in the United States: New evidence from an employer's survey. Unpublished Conference on Labor Market Inequality, Kalamazoo.

Hundley, G. (2003). Male/female earnings differences in self-employment: The effects of marriage, children, and household division of labor. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 54(1), 95-115.

Jurik, N. (1998). Getting away and getting by. Work and Occupations, 25(1), 7-35.

Kalleberg, A. L., Reskin, B. F., & Hudson, K. (2000). Bad jobs in America: Standard and nonstandard employment relations and job quality in the United States. American Sociological Review, 65(April), 256-278.

Kohli, M. (1994). Work and retirement: A comparative perspective. In R. L. Kahn & A. Foner (Eds.), Age and structural lag (Chapter 4). NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Kunda, G., Barley, S., & Evans, J. (2002). Why do contractors contract? The theory and reality of high end contingent labor. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 55(2), 234-261.

Laird, K., & Williams, N. (1996). Employment growth in the temporary help supply industry. Journal of Labor Research, 17(4), 663-681.

Lepak, D., & Snell, S. (1999). The human resource architecture: Toward a theory of human capital allocation and development. Academy of Management Review, 2(1), 31-48.

Loscocco, K. A. (1997). Work-family linkages among self-employed women and men. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 50, 204-226.

Marler, J. H. (2000). Toward a multi-level model of preference for contingent employment. Unpublished Dissertation, Cornell University, Ithaca.

Marler, J. H., Barringer, M. W., & Milkovich, G. T. (2002). Boundaryless and traditional contingent employees. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 425-453.

Marler, J. H., Tolbert, P., & Milkovich, G. (2003). Alternative employment arrangements. In P. Moen (Ed.), It's about time: Couples and careers. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

McAllister, J. (1998). Sisyphus at work in the warehouse: Temporary employment in Greenville, South Carolina. In K. Barker & K. Christensen (Eds.), Contingent work (pp. 221-242). New York: Oxford University Press.

Meiksins, P., & Whalley, P. (2002). Putting work in its place. Ithaca: ILR Press imprint of Cornell University Press.

Moen, P. and Shin-Kap Han (2001). Gendered Careers: A Life Course Perspective. In R. Hertz and N. Marshall, Working families: The transformation of the American home, pp. 42-57. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Negrey, C. (1991). Gender, time and reduced work. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Parker, R. E. (1994). Flesh peddlers and warm bodies. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.

Pfeffer, J., & Barron, J. N. (1988). Taking the workers back out. Research in Organizational Behavior, 10, 257-303.

Polivka, A. E. (1996). Contingent and alternative work arrangements defined. Monthly Labor Review, October, 119(10), 3-9.

Polivka, A. E., Cohany, S., & Hipple, S. (2000). Definition, composition, and economic consequences of the nonstandard workforce. In F. Carre, M. A. Ferber, L. Golden, & S. A. Herzenberg (Eds.), Nonstandard work (pp. 41-94). Urbana-Champaign: Industrial Relations Research Association.

Rogers, J. K. (2000). Temps: The many faces of the changing workplace. Ithaca: ILR Press imprint of Cornell University Press.

Rothstein, D. S. (1996). Entry into and consequences of nonstandard work arrangements. Monthly Labor Review, October, 199(10), 75-82.

Segal, L. M., & Sullivan, D. G. (1997). The growth of temporary services work. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 11(2), 117-136.

Tilly, C. (1996). Half a job: Bad and good part-time jobs in a changing labor market. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

VanDyne, L., & Ang, S. (1998). Organizational citizenship behavior of contingent workers in Singapore. Academy of Management Journal, 41(6), 692-703.

Other Recommended Readings on this Topic:
(Click on titles to link to citations/annotations in the Literature Database.)

Barker, K., & Christensen, K. (Eds.). (1998). Contingent work. Ithaca: ILR Press.

Carre, F., Ferber, M., Golden, L., & Hersenberg, S. (2000). Nonstandard work: The nature and challenges of changing employment arrangements. Champaign: Industrial Relations Research Association.

Kalleberg, A. L., Reskin, B. F., & Hudson, K. (2000). Bad jobs in America: Standard and nonstandard employment relations and job quality in the United States. American Sociological Review, 65(April), 256-278.

Marler, J. H., Tolbert, P., & Milkovich, G. (2003). Alternative employment arrangements. In P. Moen (Ed.), It's about time: Couples and careers. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Meiksins, P., & Whalley, P. (2002). Putting work in its place. Ithaca: ILR Press imprint of Cornell University Press.

Pfeffer, J., & Barron, J. N. (1988). Taking the workers back out. Research in Organizational Behavior, 10, 257-303.

Rogers, J. K. (2000). Temps: The many faces of the changing workplace. Ithaca: ILR Press imprint of Cornell University Press.

Locations in the Matrix of Information Domains of the Work-Family Area of Studies

The Editorial Board of the Teaching Resources section of the Sloan Work and Family Research Network has prepared a Matrix as a way to locate important work-family topics in the broad area of work-family studies. (More about the Matrix…)

To download the matrix, click here: http://wfnetwork.bc.edu/downloads/Alternative_Work.pdf