Cross-border and sedentary workers’ job satisfaction
Sophie WodociagCentre de Recherche En Gestion des Organisations (CREGO), Universit_e de Haute-Alsace, Mulhouse, France
Valentina Dolce
Groupe de Recherche en Psychologie Sociale (GrePS),
Institute of Psychology, Universit_e Lumi_ere Lyon 2, Lyon, France, and
Monica Molino
Department of Psychology, University of Turin, Turin, Italy
Cross-border and sedentary workers’ job satisfaction Abstract
Purpose – This study aimed to explore cross-border and sedentary workers’ job satisfaction,
analysing the role played by employability dimensions (occupational expertise,
anticipation/optimization and personal flexibility), a job resource (autonomy), and job demands (job insecurity and toxic leadership), using the job demands-resources (JD-R) model as a theoretical framework. Moreover, this study tried to detect possible discrepancies between the two subsamples.
Design/methodology/approach – The study involved a sample of 250 employees, 40% of whom
were frontier workers. Data were collected with a self-report questionnaire and analysed with SPSS 25. A hierarchical regression analysis and t-test for independent samples were performed.
Findings – The findings evidenced differences between the two subsamples concerning the job
satisfaction predictors. Specifically, for cross-border workers, optimization/anticipation appeared significantly positively related to job satisfaction. For sedentary workers, toxic leadership and job insecurity were significantly negatively related to job satisfaction. Autonomy was positively related to the outcome for both samples. Furthermore, cross-border workers reported a higher level of optimization/anticipation, personal flexibility and job satisfaction than sedentary workers.
Originality/value – This paper contributed to fill a gap currently present in the literature on the
cross-border population, with a specific focus on job satisfaction. This study confirmed the existence of peculiar working dynamics for cross-border workers.
Paper type – Research paper
Key words: job satisfaction, employability, job insecurity, toxic leadership, autonomy, border
Introduction
Globalization and the consequent internationalization of organizations, the advent of new technologies and the diversity of contracts and careers has made the current labour market more complex, dynamic and unstable (Knight, 2004). Some organizations have reacted with corporate mergers, the relocation of production sites, new sales points and other business activities set abroad (Mayrhofer, 2011). Accordingly, the current labour market requires new types of mobility,
flexibility and adaptability to various contexts (Fugate et al., 2004), and a new form of
“boundaryless career” (Inkson et al., 2012). Workers now belong to multicultural teams and they are often involved in long expatriations or international assignments (Pate and Scullion, 2018; Desmarais et al., 2012). In accordance with this trend, cross-border commuting became an
important work flow to regulate labour market needs. This phenomenon is widespread in different parts of the world (Strüver, 2002), such as between Mexico and the United States (Alegría, 2002). According to EU law (No. 1408/71), cross-border commuters work in one (28 EU member states and Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Switzerland) but reside in another to which they return daily, or at least once a week. Back in the 1980s, when the flow of frontier workers increased (Aubry, 1984; Brahimi, 1980) and led to significant spatial and structural changes (Mohr et al., 1992), research in the fields of economics, geography and sociology started to consider this worker population (Pigeron-Piroth, 2013). On the contrary, in the field of Human Resources, few studies were performed in the last decades. More recently, a preliminary qualitative study on cross-border commuters paid attention to new employment issues such as employability, job insecurity
(Wodociag et al., 2018) and career management (Lutz et al., 2018). In particular, employees and employers involved in these studies highlighted the importance of employability, flexibility and adaptability to manage careers in a landscape characterized by intense mobility. Moreover,
leadership, autonomy and initiative appeared to be necessary personal resources (Wodociag et al., 2018). Furthermore, once employed on the other side of the frontier, cross-border workers did not lead a nomad career (Barley, 1989), but they privileged a traditional one. Such preliminary findings raised the necessity of further studies on cross-border workers (Lund, 2003).
Using the job demands-resources (JD-R) model (Bakker and Demerouti, 2007), this research aimed to examine cross-border commuters’ job satisfaction and its personal and job antecedents. In
particular, we explored the determinants of cross-border workers’ job satisfaction, considering some job demands (job insecurity and toxic leadership), a job resource (autonomy) and three dimensions of employability as personal resources (occupational expertise, anticipation and optimization, and personal flexibility). Furthermore, we compared cross-border and sedentary workers in order to evidence potential differences.
Literature review
Cross-borders in the Upper Rhine
The Upper Rhine region represents an emblematic example of a borderland, involving three countries: France (Alsace), Germany (Bade-Wurtemberg) and Switzerland (Nord-West). The mobility phenomenon is not free from contradictions, ambiguities and problematic connotations (Costas, 2013); national borders have always been seen, on the one hand, as barriers and on the other hand, as a ‘touchdown zone’ in which new opportunities can be found (Valsangiacomo, 2001).
Nowadays, 355,000 French workers cross the border daily to work in a neighbouring country (Observatoire des Territoires, 2017). France appears to be a European country with a major number of outgoing cross-border workers (European Parliament, 1997); other countries interested in this phenomenon are Italy, Belgium, Germany and Austria. In 2013, the French population of the Grand Est region included 162,300 cross-border workers (Cacheux et al., 2016).
Specifically, Alsace and Lorraine, regions in the French Great Est, are characterized by an intense transmigration phenomenon, mainly towards Switzerland for the Alsace region’s population and Luxembourg and Germany for the Lorraine region’s population (Bertrand, 2004). Thus, the cross-border mobility in the Upper-Rhine affected 40,400 residents in 2012 (Insee, 2016), 36,100 having a job in the Basel area (Insee, 2016). With an increase of 21% between 1999 and 2012, the number of cross-border workers was constantly increasing, in particular the flow of Alsatian workers to Switzerland (Insee, 2016). In 2020, they represented 25% of the working population of Basel City (Ferro Luzzi et al., 2020).
Cross-border commuting corresponds to the daily or almost daily movement of an individual between his place of residence and his place of work in another country (Commenges and Fen-Chong, 2017). In particular, according to the regulation n°1408/71 of the European community, cross-border workers should prove to the authorities that they effectively resided for six months in the border area where they return every day after having worked on the other side of the border (Aubry, 1984). Regarding the beneficial aspects that cross-border commuting may offer, the workers usually report a higher wage and, generally, a more convenient tax regime or health coverage (Barcella, 2018; Casteigts, 2003). Moreover, this mobility may represent a strategy to cope with the unemployment problem that concerns 9.4% of the active population in France (Eurostat, 2018). Indeed, the skilled job market in Switzerland (Aubry, 1984) offers an alternative to the economic slowdown in France (Cohen-Solal, 1991).
Despite the national policy of host countries has not always promoted the integration of cross-border workers (Sanfilippo, 2018), organizations have continued to employ cross-cross-border workers for various reasons. Firstly, considering economic conditions and industrialization processes (Barcella, 2018), this workforce was used as a "conjectural buffer" (Garufo, 2014). Secondly, the geographical proximity allows the cross-border workforce to be considered as a local workforce. Thirdly, cross-border workers appear particularly qualified: 16% of the Upper-Rhine cross-border commuters got a university degree in 2012 (Insee, 2016). Specifically, considering the same position, a comparison of cross-border labourers with French labourers in the same position found that the frontier workers had a higher level of education than their French colleagues (Observatoire Statistique Transfrontalier de l’Arc Jurassien, 2011). Nevertheless, the access to hierarchical positions remains less easy for cross-border workers (Insee, 2016) than for national ones.
Accordingly, although such a mobility involves many contradictions, ambiguities and problems (Costas, 2013), cross-border workers have constituted a sought-after labour force; cross-border organizations might be interested in their retention, limiting their level of turnover and in sustaining employment relationships. Therefore, the study of cross-border workers’ job satisfaction appears strategic, in accordance with a variety of evidence in the literature (e.g., Irvine and Evans, 1995; Poon, 2004) that showed a relation between work conditions, well-being and in turn, absenteeism and intention to quit the company.
Job satisfaction
Job satisfaction has been conceptualized as a set of positive emotional reactions and attitudes towards a job, but also as a variable comprising various facets (Faragher et al., 2005; Pejtersen et al., 2010). The interest toward this topic has been mainly due to its relation with some
organizational and health aspects. Specifically, scholars highlighted the relation of this construct with turnover intent (e.g., Irvine and Evans, 1995; Lambert et al., 2001), job performance (Judge et al., 2001) and absenteeism (Siu, 2002).
Although job satisfaction has been deeply examined (e.g., Gatti et al., 2017; Mathieu et al., 2014; Yeh, 2015), some gaps remain; indeed, the population of workers involved in daily mobility or in flexpatriate assignments has not been explored to the same extent and it has not been compared with a sedentary worker population. In particular, previous studies called to examine the elements directly related to the formal and informal work relationship between the cross-border employee and his/her employer (Lutz et al., 2019). Indeed, since the 1990s, the Upper-Rhine labour market has seen a change in employment expectations: on the employers' side, greater functional flexibility and an expansion of activities are expected. (Masdonati, 2007). On the employee side, career paths
are more mobile and spiralling, non-linear (Flückiger, 2007; Masdonati, 2007). Above all, the promise of a long-term job, based on the business core, gives way to the promise of employability (Guerrero, 2001) and network employability (Boltanski and Chiapello, 1999). As a result, it seems suitable to investigate the cross-border’s work satisfaction with regard to the relationship with their job and career path. In the following paragraphs, we describe the variables that seemed to us to be the most relevant in the case of cross-border commuters.
The job demands-resources model
In line with previous research (e.g., Gatti et al., 2017; Simbula, 2010; Yeh, 2015), the current study used the JD-R model as a theoretical framework to investigate cross-border workers’ job
satisfaction. According to the JD-R model (Bakker et al., 2004; Bakker and Demerouti, 2007) the interaction between job demands and job resources is able to explain, almost partially, both job strain and work engagement (Demerouti and Bakker, 2011). Specifically, job demands (e.g., high work pressure, irregular working hours) and resources (e.g., supervisor and co-worker support, role clarity, job security) refer to the physical, psychological, social and organizational aspects of a job. Job demands may generate physiological or psychological costs (Bakker and Demerouti, 2007) while job resources: “1) are functional in achieving work goals, 2) reduce job demands and the associated physiological and psychological costs, 3) stimulate personal growth, learning, and development” (Demerouti and Bakker, 2011, p. 2). Later, the original JD-R model was extended including also personal resources to better explain the work-related outcomes (Xanthopoulou et al., 2007; 2009). Personal resources refer to an individual’s perception of the capabilities that allow him/her to act successfully in the environment in which people work (Bakker et al., 2004). In the light of these considerations, in order to investigate antecedents of job satisfaction, the present contribution takes into account two job demands – job insecurity and toxic leadership – and one job resource – autonomy; moreover, employability is considered as a personal resource.
Personal resource: employability
To survive in today’s turbulent work environment people often need to be flexible, adaptable, able to take charge of their own career and proactive (Lo Presti and Pluviano, 2016), which means employable. Therefore, nowadays, employability appears a strategic resource to respond to changes and to transformation of work (Winterton and Haworth, 2013), crucial to find a job, as well as to maintain and enhance a job position during working life (Signore et al., 2019). In addition, Gowan’s longitudinal study (2012), carried out on a sample of workers who experienced a career
disruption in the form of a company closing, showed how employability, over time, predicted well-being and job satisfaction.
Employability is a complex construct, boasting various definitions (e.g., Fugate et al.; 2004; McQuaid and Lindsay, 2005; Rothwell and Arnold, 2007; Van Dam, 2004; Van Der Heijde and Van Der Heijden, 2006). Among these, one of the most prevalent is that of Fugate et al. (2004) who defined employability as a form of proactive adaptability useful to manage the ever-growing dynamism of market labour, the variety of role transitions related to job and private life and the organizational change. Shortly, employability is defined by authors (2004) as a form of proactive adaptability, consisting of three dimensions: career identity, personal adaptability and social and human capital.
Starting from Fugate et al.’s model (2004) and Van Dam’s study (2004), Van Der Heijde and Van Der Heijde (2006) elaborated a model using a competence-based approach and defined
employability as the continuous achieving, acquiring or creating of work through an efficient use of competences.
Specifically, according to Van der Heijde and Van der Heijden (2006) five general dimensions define employability: occupational expertise, anticipation and optimization, personal flexibility, corporate sense and balance. In line with Wodociag et al.’s findings (2018), which suggested the importance of flexibility and adaptability to manage the complexity related to transmigration, three dimensions of employability were considered in our study: occupational expertise, anticipation and optimization, and personal flexibility (Van der Heijde and Van der Heijden, 2006). Indeed,
occupational expertise concerns professional knowledge and skills, including those which are meta-cognitive; anticipation and optimization relate to a proactive and creative adaptation to improve career competence; finally, personal flexibility refers to the capability to adapt to changes (Van der Heijde and Van der Heijden, 2006). In line with the JD-R model, the three dimensions were
classified as personal resources and consistently with previous results (Gowan, 2012), their relationship with job satisfaction was observed:
Hypothesis 1. Occupational expertise, anticipation and optimization, and personal flexibility are positively related to job satisfaction for both cross-border and sedentary workers.
Furthermore, literature on the impact of internationalization suggests that intercultural experiences may increase transferable skills and employability (Jones, 2013), as well as overall intercultural competences (Takeuchi et al., 2005).
Specifically, some studies (e.g., Benson and Pattie, 2008; Bücker et al., 2016; Dolce et al., 2021), showed that workers recognize an empowerment in terms of managerial knowledge, intercultural competences and soft skills thanks to various experiences abroad (not limited to expatriation). Indeed, in line with the social learning theory (SLT, Bandura, 1997), the social participation, interaction and behavioural observation, which occur abroad, can foster various competences (Michailova and Ott, 2018): people become able to change their behaviour according to the cultural situation, to recognise differences and similarities among countries, to adjust their own mental model, to modify the interaction strategies (Ang and Van Dyne, 2008). The phenomenon of transmigration can be considered a particular form of international mobility defined by a daily interaction, social participation and observation within a specific cultural context, and, therefore, we assumed that it is able to promote the development of employability:
Hypothesis 2. Cross-border workers have a higher level of occupational expertise, anticipation and optimization, and personal flexibility than sedentary workers.
Job resource: autonomy
According to the JD-R model (Bakker et al., 2004), autonomy is classified as a job resource, potentially able to facilitate the achievement of work goals, stimulate personal growth and reduce job demands and their subsequent costs. Bakker et al.’s study (2004) showed that autonomy had a limited capability to buffer the undesired impact of job demands, but it was directly negatively related to exhaustion. In this regard, a recent contribution, which adopted the JD-R model as a theoretical framework, conducted during the Covid-19 pandemic, confirmed the negative
relationship between autonomy and emotional exhaustion through the partial mediation of recovery (Dolce et al., 2020). Another recent contribution by Spagnoli and Molinaro (2020) investigated the role of autonomy as moderator between negative (workaholic) emotions and emotional exhaustion, highlighting the differences between managers and freelancers.
As regards job satisfaction, Skaalvik and Skaalvik (2014), who involved in their research a sample of Norwegians teachers, found that autonomy is directly and positively related to job satisfaction, confirming the empirical evidences of the older work by Koustelios and colleagues (2004).
Similarly, Lu and colleagues (2012) in their review on job satisfaction of hospital nurses suggested that autonomy, together with other job resources, plays an important positive role. In line with these evidences related to homogeneous professional categories, the more recent study by Alegre et al. (2016) conducted on a sample of employees of a Spanish pharmaceutical company, found that a
higher level of autonomy in structuring and managing work is related to a higher level of job satisfaction.
Specifically, in the case of cross-border commuters, the working conditions are perceived as quite pleasant thanks to the flexibility of schedules or the possibility of a continuous day. On the basis of the previous findings and these last considerations, we hypothesized that:
Hypothesis 3. Autonomy is positively related to job satisfaction for cross-border and sedentary workers.
Job demands: the role of job insecurity and toxic leadership
The characteristics of the current labour market have increased attention towards job insecurity (JI) (Cheng and Chan, 2008; Lee et al., 2018; Sverke et al., 2002). In the mid-1980s, JI was defined as “perceived powerlessness to maintain desired continuity in a threatened job situation” (Greenhalgh and Rosenblatt, 1984, p. 438). JI reflects the negative expectation of an unwanted event (Sverke et al., 2002) and it can be distinguished with regard to qualitative and quantitative insecurity (De Witte and Naswall, 2003; Hellgren et al., 1999). Several studies, as confirmed by different meta-analyses (Cheng and Chan, 2008; Sverke et al., 2002; Lee et al., 2018), have paid attention to some detrimental job- and health- related consequences, specifically in relation to work engagement (e.g., De Cuyper et al., 2008), performance and organizational commitment (e.g., Piccoli et al., 2017), burnout and job exhaustion (e.g., De Cuyper et al., 2012; Giunchi et al., 2016), and physical health (e.g., Hellgren and Sverke, 2003; Silla et al., 2009).
Among the detrimental consequences, job insecurity appeared negatively related to job satisfaction (Debus et al., 2012; De Cuyper et al., 2009; Emanuel et al., 2018; Kӧnig et al., 2011; Lee et al., 2018; Sverke et al., 2002). In the case of cross-border commuters, negative elements are related to longer legal working time, shorter paid holidays or even divergent social protection systems. In Switzerland, frontier status remains precarious because linked to the obtention of a work permit; in addition, the work law is perceived as less protective for employees than in France. Those points may reinforce the feeling of cross-borders’ JI.
In line with Schaufeli and Taris (2014) who proposed the use of JD-R model as conceptual framework (Schaufeli, 2016) to integrate JI, also the present contribution considers JI as a job demand. In the light of its important effects on individual well-being and organisational outcomes (Schaufeli and Taris, 2014), and consistently with other works who found a negative association between JI and job satisfaction (e.g., Reisel et al., 2010) we assumed that:
Hypothesis 4. JI is negatively related to job satisfaction for cross-border and sedentary workers. In addition to JI, among job demands, we considered also the toxic leadership, that, in line with various contributions (e.g., Kaluza et al., 2020; Schyns and Schilling, 2013) has negative
repercussions at individual and organizational level. Various definitions and different focuses have been dedicated to leadership since the beginning of 20th. As suggested by Schyns and Schilling (2013), since the 1990s, some authors have highlighted the dark side of leadership (Conger, 1990). Different terms such as ‘destructive’ (Einarsen et al., 2007), ‘toxic’ (Lipman-Blumen, 2004), ‘abusive’ (Tepper, 2000) have been used to describe the dark side of leadership (Einersen et al., 2007; Schyns and Schilling, 2013). According to Einersen et al. (2007), destructive leadership can be defined as “the systematic and repeated behaviour by a leader, supervisor or manager that violates the legitimate interest of the organisation by undermining and/or sabotaging the
organization’s goals, tasks, resources, and effectiveness and/or the motivation, well-being or job satisfaction of subordinates” (Einersen et al., 2007, p. 209). Consequences at the individual and organizational levels of toxic leadership interested scholars (Schyns and Schilling, 2013). The findings of a number of studies showed the relation between abusive leadership and emotional exhaustion, (e.g., Dolce et al., 2020; Tepper, 2000), deviant behaviour (e.g., Thau and Mitchell, 2010), psychological distress (e.g., Rafferty et al., 2010), work-family conflict (Tepper, 2000) and reduced family well-being (Hoobler and Brass, 2006). In terms of attitudes towards work,
destructive leadership was negatively related to job satisfaction (Tepper, 2000; Mathieu et al., 2014).
Since work relationships essentially rely on strong support from management and colleagues, and this is particularly true for cross-border workers (Lutz et al., 2019), social support is a motivation particularly relevant for ensuring their mobility over time. On the other side, a supervisor who is not supportive, not attentive to the employees' needs and/or not respectful of their privacy could
undermine employees' satisfaction with their job. Thus, in this study, it was assumed that: Hypothesis 5. Toxic leadership is negatively related to job satisfaction for cross-border and sedentary workers.
Hypotheses
Job satisfaction and its determinants have been extensively examined in the literature; nevertheless, no study to date has considered these dynamics for the cross-border population. Figure 1 presents
the study hypotheses which have been investigated separately for cross-border and sedentary workers.
Insert Figure 1 around here
---Method
Procedure and sample:
A total of 250 workers, residents in the Alsace region at the border of Switzerland and Germany, took part in this study. In particular, 101 (40%) were cross-border workers and 149 (60%) were sedentary employees, namely residents and workers in the same region.
The demographic characteristics of cross-border and sedentary workers are presented in Table 1. Participants completed an online self-report questionnaire on the LimeSurvey platform. The
voluntary and unpaid nature of participation in the research and the confidentiality of the data were emphasized in the cover letter of the questionnaire. The study observed the Helsinki Declaration (World Medical Association, 2001); since it did not involve medical treatment or other procedures capable of causing psychological or social discomfort to participants, no further ethical approval was required. The sample was recruited through a free collaboration (random collection) between University and workers in the area of Alsace Region.
Measures
Job satisfaction was measured by 5 items (Pejtersen et al., 2010), using a 5-point Likert scale, from 1 = “very dissatisfied” to 5 = “very satisfied”; an example item is “How pleased are you with your work prospects?”. This scale measures the satisfaction relating to the work in general as well various job aspects such as career perspectives, physical working conditions, relations at work. Cronbach’s alpha was .87 for the whole sample, .86 for the cross-border workers subsample and .88 for the sedentary workers subsample.
Job insecurity was measured by 4 items (De Witte, 2000), applying a 5-point Likert scale from 1 = “completely disagree” to 5 = “completely agree”; an example item is: “I feel insecure about the future of my job”. This scale measures the insecurity about keeping him/her job in future. Cronbach’s alpha was .77 for the whole sample and .77 for both the cross-border and sedentary workers subsamples.
Employability was detected through 11 items of the Van Der Heijde and Van Der Heijden scale (2006), using a 5-point Likert scale, from 1 = “completely disagree” to 5 = “completely agree”. Three dimensions defined the factor-structure of this scale: occupational expertise, optimization and anticipation, and flexibility. Professional expertise was measured by 4 items; an example item is “During the past year, I was, in general, competent to take prompt decisions with respect to my
approach to work.” Cronbach’s alpha was .81 for the whole sample, .86 for the cross-border workers subsample and .78 for the sedentary workers subsample. Optimization and anticipation were detached using 4 items; an example item is “I take responsibility for maintaining my labour market value”. Cronbach’s alpha was .86 for the whole sample, .82 for the cross-border workers’ subsample and .88 for the sedentary workers subsample. Personal Flexibility was measured by 3 items; an example item is “I adapt easily to developments within my organization”. Cronbach’s alpha was .68 for the whole sample, .68 for the cross-border workers subsample and .67 for the sedentary workers subsample.
Autonomy was detached using 3 items (Bakker et al., 2004), applying a 5-point Likert scale from 1 = “never” to 5 = “always”, in which respondents were asked how frequently they experiment in some work situations. This scale measures the level of flexibility in performing job activities, the degree of control on job, and the extent of participation in making decisions. Cronbach’s alpha was .77 for the whole sample, .83 for the cross-border workers subsample and .71 for the sedentary workers subsample.
Toxic Leadership was detached using 4 items (Schmidt, 2008) applying a 5-point Likert scale from 1 = “never” to 5 = “always”. An example item is: “My supervisor invades the privacy of
subordinates”. This scale measures how much the leader invades the extra-working hours, demands immediate answers and tends to make urgent demands. Cronbach’s alpha was .65 for the whole sample, .62 for the cross-border workers subsample and .69 for the sedentary workers subsample. Statistical analysis
The statistics software SPSS 25 was used to perform descriptive data analysis separately in each subsample (cross-border and sedentary workers). Person correlations were tested to detect relationships between the variables and Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was calculated to verify the scales’ reliability in the whole sample and separately in the cross-border and sedentary workers’ subsamples. Furthermore, an analysis of variance through a t-test for independent samples was performed in order to examine potential differences between the means of the variables of the cross-border and sedentary workers’ subsamples.
In order to test regression effects on job satisfaction, a hierarchical multiple regression analysis was performed controlling for sex (0 = male; 1 = female), age and job position (1 = employee). In the first step of the analysis, the control variables were introduced. In the second step, the personal and job resources were tested. Finally, in the third step, we introduced the two demands: job insecurity and toxic leadership.
Results
Job satisfaction, as illustrated in the correlation matrix (Table 2), evidenced a significant positive relation with the three dimensions of employability, specifically professional expertise (r = .30, p < .01), optimization and anticipation (r = .39, p < .01) and personal flexibility (r = .19, p < .01) as well with autonomy in the whole sample (r = .36, p < .01). On the contrary, job satisfaction was significantly negatively related both to toxic leadership (r = -.28, p < .01) and job insecurity (r = -.29, p < .01). Control variables did not correlate with job satisfaction. All α values meet the criterion of .60 (Nunnally and Bernstein, 1994) as they ranged between .65 and .87 in the whole sample.
Insert Table 2
---Table 3 shows the correlation results in the two subsamples. We found similar results between the two subsamples, except for personal flexibility and job position, which did not correlate with job satisfaction.
Insert Table 3
---As shown by Table 4, the results revealed a higher level of job satisfaction for cross-border workers (M = 3.73, SD = .85) than for sedentary workers (M = 3.43, SD =. 88) [t (248) = 2.784, p < .01]. In terms of employability, the analysis of variance has revealed that the level of optimization and anticipation, as well as personal flexibility, was higher for cross-border workers (M = 3.86, SD = . 79 for optimization and anticipation; M = 3.70, SD = .89 for personal flexibility) than for sedentary (M = 3.61, SD = .91 for optimization and anticipation; M = 3.46, SD = .92 for personal flexibility) [t (248) = 2.238, p < .05] [t (248) = 2.082, p < .05]. Contrary to the other two employability
dimensions, occupational expertise did not differ significantly among the groups [t (248) = .924, p = .356]. The findings did not show any significant differences between the two subsamples for
autonomy [t (248) = .942, p = .347], toxic leadership [t (248) = - .740, p = .460] and job insecurity [t (248) = .621, p = .535].
Insert Table 4
---The results from hierarchical multiple regression analysis with job satisfaction as the dependent variable, performed separately on the two subsamples, are reported in Table 5 (cross-border workers) and Table 6 (sedentary workers). In relation to the cross-border workers sample, at the first step (corrected R2 = .06), the control variables were not significantly related to job satisfaction.
anticipation (ß = .37, p < .01) and autonomy (ß = .18, p < .05) showed a significant positive relation with job satisfaction. Conversely, at the third step, the model did not significantly change (corrected R2 = .32) since the two demands did not show significant associations with job satisfaction, while
age showed a negative relation with job satisfaction (ß = -.22, p < .05), both autonomy (ß = .20, p < .05) and optimization and anticipation (ß = .38, p < .01) showed a positive association with the dependent variable.
Insert Table 5
---In terms of the hierarchical multiple regression analysis performed on the sedentary workers sample (Table 6), at the first step (corrected R2 = .02) any control variables (age, gender and job position)
were significantly related to job satisfaction. At the second step (corrected R2 = .22) the results
showed that, among the resources, only autonomy was significantly positively related to job satisfaction (ß = .37, p < .001). At the third step (corrected R2 = .29), the model significantly
improved, since job insecurity (ß = -.17, p < .05) and toxic leadership (ß = -.23, p < .01) dimensions showed a significant association with job satisfaction, while autonomy (ß = .23, p < .05) remained positively related to the dependent variable
Insert Table 6
---Discussion
This study aimed to examine cross-border workers’ job satisfaction and some of its determinants (employability, job insecurity, toxic leadership, autonomy) in comparison to sedentary workers. Overall, cross-border workers were significantly more satisfied with their job than sedentary workers. Moreover, in the two subsamples, different determinants of job satisfaction emerged, confirming the existence of peculiar working dynamics for cross-border workers (Wodociag et al., 2019). In the following, we will discuss each of our initial assumptions, which were partially confirmed.
Regarding employability, we assumed that occupational expertise, anticipation and optimization, and personal flexibility were positively related to job satisfaction for cross-border and sedentary workers. This first hypothesis was confirmed only for cross-border workers, whose optimization and anticipation were significantly related to job satisfaction, while personal flexibility and
professional expertise did not appear to be significantly related to job satisfaction, neither for cross-border nor sedentary workers. Further, our second hypothesis assumed that cross-cross-border workers have a higher level of occupational expertise, anticipation and optimization, and personal flexibility than sedentary workers. Since cross-border workers reported a higher level of anticipation and
optimization and personal flexibility than sedentary workers, while there was not a significant difference for professional expertise, the second hypothesis was partially confirmed. Overall, these findings suggest that for workers whose origin labour market was less dynamic, anticipation, optimization and flexibility have a crucial role. First, they encourage the drive to move, even geographically, to seek new opportunities. Cross-border commuting might be considered more a necessity than an opportunity in border areas characterized by economic difficulties (Hamman, 2005). Proactive adaptability and flexibility are particularly crucial to succeed in career paths often characterized by greater competition and challenges, especially for those who are cross-border workers (e.g., Insee, 2016). Second, differences between the two groups confirm that international and intercultural experiences may increase the development of skills, flexibility and more in general employability (Dolce et al., 2021; Jones, 2013). Moreover, employability may be considered a personal resource that is more acknowledged and promoted in some countries. The Swiss labour market, characterized by dynamism and an intense flow of working mobility (Isel and Kuhn, 2016) might require workers to use self-employability and skills to cope with uncertainty and changes. In light of this result, cross-border commuters might be compared to nomad workers, who develop transferable competences on their own in order to build a multi-organizational career (Guillaume and Pochic, 2010). These abilities, particularly anticipation and optimization, which are essential to improve knowledge, facilitate change behaviours and enhance competences consistent with work demands (Van der Heijde and Van der Heijden, 2006), increase the opportunity to feel satisfied with the job in the case of cross-border workers.
In our third hypothesis, we supposed that autonomy is positively related to job satisfaction for cross-border and sedentary workers; this hypothesis was fully confirmed for both subsamples. This result is consistent with previous literature (Alegre et al., 2016; Lu et al., 2012; Koustelios et al., 2004; Skaalvik and Skaalvik, 2014) and confirm that autonomy is a job resource that is also able to increase job satisfaction for cross-border workers. Indeed, an aspect of the job that they pursue is flexibility and the possibility to have a certain degree of discretion in managing professional and private lives. Moreover, job autonomy allows workers to fully express their competences. Future studies should also consider work-family conflict in these dynamics, in order to better understand the role of job autonomy and exclude the risk of an increase in workload as described by the autonomy paradox (Mazmanian et al., 2013).
According to the fourth hypothesis, job insecurity would be negatively related to job satisfaction for cross-border and sedentary workers; this hypothesis was partially confirmed. In line with the literature (De Cuyper et al., 2009; Lee et al., 2018; Sverke et al., 2002), the analysis evidenced a significant relation between job insecurity and job satisfaction only for sedentary workers, although
the two groups perceived a similar level of job insecurity. Cross-border workers might dissociate job insecurity from job satisfaction as they have already tested a coping strategy by travelling out of their national market to remain employed. The decision to work abroad is often motivated by career development possibilities (Dickmann et al., 2008), especially for the nomad workers (Barley, 1989) with which cross-border commuters might be compared. In nomad careers, satisfaction depends on personal expectations and values (Dahan and Dufour, 2012), more than on other elements like stability. This could be particularly true for those who decide to travel from France towards
Switzerland and are aware that they will find a less protective work law in the new country. Future research may examine the link between cross-border workers’ level of job satisfaction, work engagement and organizational involvement to assess whether cross-border commuters are satisfied regardless of the organization in which they work.
The fifth hypothesis stated that toxic leadership is negatively related to job satisfaction for cross-border and sedentary workers and it was confirmed only for sedentary workers. In accordance with other research (Tepper, 2000; Mathieu et al., 2014), supervisors’ destructive behaviours may be detrimental to workers’ job satisfaction; however, this is not the case for cross-border workers. It seems that for this kind of worker, the relationship with their supervisor, even if negative, does not influence how they experience the job as a whole. As stated above, we can suppose that for a worker who decides to move into another country to find better job opportunities, which should be consistent with his/her personal expectations and values (Dahan and Dufour, 2012), the quality of the relationship with the supervisor is not particularly relevant in terms of job satisfaction.
Nevertheless, future studies are needed to better investigate this relationship, taking into consideration also the role of colleagues and team cohesion as well as differences in leadership model and organizational cultures, which could be truly dissimilar in different countries.
If we consider the whole model that we used to build our hypotheses, we could say that for cross-border workers job satisfaction depends specifically on the presence of specific resources, while job demands (such as job insecurity and toxic leadership) do not have the potential to endanger it. We could suppose that cross-border workers have developed more strategies to cope with difficulties and troubles in their professional path; however, future studies that take into consideration further personal resources, such as problem solving or coping, are needed to confirm this hypothesis. In the model, we also considered some control variables; among them only age showed a significant negative relation with job satisfaction in the cross-border sample. This result highlights differences between senior and junior people who work abroad in terms of their job satisfaction; perhaps older workers find it more difficult to manage the daily mobility and professional perspectives in another
country, but this result needs to be further investigated with consideration of work-life balance theory.
Practical implications for cross-border workers
The study highlighted specific work dynamics for cross-border commuters, inviting organizations to set up a dedicated management device. In order to retain the cross-border workforce and decrease turnover risks, their specific competences might be tracked and valorised and accordingly, career trajectories based on adaptability, flexibility and an international path might be managed. Career practitioners should plan counselling and coaching interventions aimed at strengthening employees’ employability, their capacity to deal with changes and respond in an adaptive and flexible way to developmental tasks and possible occupational transitions (Savickas, 2012; Silla et al., 2009). In order to consolidate the relationship between cross-border workers and their collective labour environment, discussion spaces (Detchessahar, 2013) might be created allowing cross-cultural barriers to be overcome and the perception of job insecurity to be reduced; clarity and flow of information may be improved at the organizational level clarifying what will happen in the future (Abildgaard et al., 2017). Moreover, at an organizational level, it would be useful to promote autonomy as an important resource; organizations could consider introducing smart working practices in order to give employees more autonomy and flexibility and support cross-border workers in the management of their working life.
Limitations
The present study also had a number of limitations. Firstly, the cross-sectional design did not allow causality relationships to be established (Podsakoff et al., 2012); future studies should use
longitudinal or diary approaches. Secondly, the use of self-reported data might potentially inflate the results (Conway, 2002); further studies might therefore consider the use of objective or other-reported ratings; in this case, the supervisors’ and colleagues’ point of view should be particularly relevant. Thirdly, the sampling procedure imposed constraints on the extent to which the study’s findings can be generalized and sample heterogeneity prevents consideration about the influence of organizational cultures. Moreover, transmigration is a widespread phenomenon in different parts of the world and not only in France (Alegría, 2002; Barcella, 2018). Further studies might include samples of cross-border workers from other countries in order to explore similarities and discrepancies.
In future studies, it would be essential also to integrate qualitative and quantitative methods, since qualitative studies allow a deep and unconditioned investigation of topics of interest and might
support a better understanding of cross-border commuting. Further, to better explain the role of supervisors and their leadership style, multilevel study should be considered, involving real work teams and their supervisors.
Conclusion
Our study intended to provide preliminary information regarding cross-border workers’ experience, a little investigated phenomenon, despite it being widespread in different parts of the world
nowadays. Referring to the JD-R model, the research aimed to investigate cross-border commuters’ job satisfaction and its personal and job antecedents, comparing cross-border and sedentary
workers. According to the results, cross-border commuters derived more satisfaction from their work than sedentary workers, in particular because of their anticipation and optimization abilities, probably linked to their capacity to seek professional opportunities on the other side of the border. Moreover, job autonomy was a job resource able to increase job satisfaction in both samples, while job demands (job insecurity and toxic leadership) are relevant in job satisfaction decreasing only for sedentary workers. Overall, these results confirmed that cross border workers should be considered as a peculiar population, showing different work dynamics compared with their colleagues. This requires more investment in both research and organizational interventions, in order to retain the cross-border workforce and foster its motivation and satisfaction. Particularly, it is important to track and valorise their competences, and build-up career trajectories based on adaptability and flexibility. Moreover, this study described different research challenges that should be taken into consideration in order to improve the understanding of this phenomenon.
References
Abildgaard, J. S., Nielsen, K. and Sverke, M. (2017), “Can job insecurity be managed? Evaluating an organizational-level intervention addressing the negative effects of restructuring”, Work Stress, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 105-123.
Alegre, I., Mas-Machuca, M. and Berbegal-Mirabent, J. (2016), “Antecedents of employee job satisfaction: Do they matter?”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 69 No. 4, pp. 1390-1395. Alegría, T. (2002), “Demand and supply of Mexican cross border workers”,‐ Journal of
Borderlands Studies, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 37-55.
Ang, S. and Van Dyne, L. (2008), Handbook on Cultural Intelligence: Theory, Measurement and Applications, M.E. Sharpe, Armonk, NY.
Aubry, B. (1984), “100 000 travailleurs frontaliers”, Economie et Statistique, No. 170, pp. 13-23 Bakker, A.B. and Demerouti, E. (2007), “The Job Demands-Resources model: State of the art”,
Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 309-328.
Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E. and Verbeke, W. (2004), “Using the job demands-resources model to predict burnout and performance”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 83-104.
Bandura, A. (1997), Self-efficacy: The Exercise of Control, W. H. Freeman, New York. Barcella, P. (2018), “Introduzione. Appunti per una riflessione sul frontalierato in prospettiva
globale”, Studi immigrazione, Vol. 211, pp. 339-349.
Barley, S. R. (1989), “Careers, identities and institutions”, in Arthur, M. B., Hall, D. T. and
Lawrence, B. S. (Eds.), Handbook of career theory, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, pp. 41-65.
Benson, G. S. and Pattie, M. (2008), “Is expatriation good for my career? The impact of expatriate assignments on perceived and actual career outcomes”, International Journal of Human Resources Management, Vol. 19 No. 9, pp. 1636-1653
Bertrand, L. (2004), “Le Grand Est: l’intégration transfrontalière, une nouvelle voie? ”, Revue Géographique de l'Est, Vol. 44 No. 3-4, pp. 117-128.
Boltanski, L. and Chiapello, E. (1999), Le nouvel esprit du capitalisme, Paris, Gallimard.
Brahimi, M. (1980), “la mortalité des étrangers en France”, Population (French Edition), Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 603-622.
Bücker, J., Poutsma, E. and Monster, H. (2016), “How and why does expatriation management influence expatriates’ employability?”, Journal of Global Mobility, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 432-452.
Cacheux, L., Creusat, J. and Eichwald-Isel, A. (2016), Les dynamiques socio-économiques du Grand Est dans son environnement régional et transfrontalier. Report INSEE.
Casteigts, M. (2003), “Enjeux et limites de la coopération transfrontaliere”, Territoires 2040 Revue D’études Et De Prospective, Documentation Française; DATAR. Available at
https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-01558396/document.
Cheng, G.H.L. and Chan, D.K.S. (2008), “Who suffers more from job insecurity? A meta-analytic review”, Applied Psychology: An International Review, Vol. 57 No. 2, pp. 272-303.
Cohen-Solal, M. (1991), “Les migrations alternantes : un volant d’ajustement du marché du travail”, Economie et Statistique, No. 249, pp.109-119.
Commenges, H. and Fen-Chong, J. (2017), “Navettes domicile-travail : naissance et développement d’un objet statistique structurant”, Annales de Géographie, Vol. 3 No. 715, pp. 333-355. Conger, J.A. (1990), “The dark side of leadership”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 19 No. 2 pp.
44-55.
Conway, J.M. (2002), “Method variance and method bias in I/O psychology”, in Rogelberg, S.G. (Ed.) Handbook of Research Methods in Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Blackwell Publishers, Oxford, pp. 344-365.
Costas, J. (2013), “Problematizing mobility: A metaphor of stickiness, non-places and the kinetic elite”, Organization Studies, Vol. 34 No. 10, pp. 1467-1485.
Dahan, J. and Dufour, Y. (2012), “Réussir sa carrière: qu'est-ce que cela signifie?”, Gestion, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 6-18.
De Cuyper, N., Bernhard-Oettel, C., Berntson, E., De Witte, H. and Alarco, B. (2008), “Employability and employees’ well-being: Mediation by job insecurity”, Applied Psychology, Vol. 57 No. 3, pp. 488-509.
De Cuyper, N., Mäkikangas, A., Kinnunen, U., Mauno, S. and De Witte, H. (2012), “Crosslagged associations between perceived external employability, job insecurity, and exhaustion: Testing gain and loss spirals according to the conservation of resources theory”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 33 No. 6, pp. 770-788.
De Cuyper, N., Notelaers, G. and De Witte, H. (2009), “Job insecurity and employability in fixed-term contractors agency workers, and permanent workers: associations with job satisfaction and affective organizational commitment”, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 193-205.
De Witte, H. and Näswall, K. (2003),“‘Objective’ vs ‘subjective’ job insecurity: consequences of temporary work for job satisfaction and organizational commitment in four European countries”, Economic and Industrial Democracy, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 149-188.
De Witte, H. (2000), “Arbeidsethos en jobonzekerheid: Meting en gevolgen voor welzijn, tevredenheid en inzet op het werk [Work ethic and job insecurity: Measurement and consequences for well-being, satisfaction and performance]”, in Bouwen, R., De Witte, K., De Witte, H. and Taillieu, T. (Eds.), Van groep naar gemeenschap. Liber Amicorum Prof. Dr. Leo Lagrou, Garant, Leuven pp. 325-350.
Debus, M.E., Probst, T.M., Kӧnig, C.J. and Kleinmann, M. (2012), “Catch me if I fall! Enacted uncertainty avoidance and the social safety net as country-level moderators in the job insecurity-job attitudes link”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 97 No. 3, pp. 690-698. Demerouti, E. and Bakker, A.B. (2011), “The job demands-resources model: Challenges for future
research”, Journal of Industrial Psychology, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 1-9.
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A.B., Nachreiner, F. and Schaufeli, W.B. (2001), “The job demands resources model of burnout”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 3, pp. 499-512. Desmarais, C., Ghislieri, C. and Wodociag, S. (2012), “Les cadres pendulaires
internationaux”, Revue Française de Gestion, Vol. 7, pp. 91-106.
Detchessahar, M. (2013), “Faire face aux risques psycho-sociaux: quelques éléments d'un management par la discussion ”, Négociations, Vol. 1, pp. 57-80.
Dickmann, M., Doherty, N., Mills, T. and Brewster, C. (2008), “Why do they go? Individual and corporate perspectives on the factors influencing the decision to accept an international assignment”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 731-751.
Dolce, V., Molino, M., Wodociag, S. and Ghislieri, C. (2021), “Gender paths in international careers: an approach centred on demands and resources”, Journal of Global Mobility. Ahead-of-print
Dolce, V., Vayre, E., Molino, M. and Ghislieri, C. (2020). “Far Away, So Close? The Role of Destructive Leadership in the Job Demands-Resources and Recovery Model in Emergency Telework”, Social Sciences, Vol. 9 No. 196, pp. 1-22.
Einarsen, E. Aasland, M.S. and Skogstad, A. (2007), “Destructive leadership behavior: a definition and conceptual model”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 207-216.
Emanuel, F., Molino, M., Lo Presti, A., Spagnoli, P. and Ghislieri, C. (2018), “A crossover study from a gender perspective: The relationship between job insecurity, job satisfaction and partners’ family life satisfaction”, Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 9 No. 2055.
European Parlament (1997), “Les travailleurs frontaliers dans l'Union européenne”, Available at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/workingpapers/soci/w16/summary_fr.htm (accessed 2/01/2019)
Eurostat (2018) “Chiffres clés sur l'Europe”, available at
https://www.europedirectpyrenees.eu/brochures-depliants/chiffres-cles-europe-2018 (accessed 5/02/2019)
Faragher, E.B., Cass, M. and Cooper, C.L. (2005), “The relationship between job satisfaction and health: a meta-analysis”, Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Vol. 62 No. 2, pp. 105-112.
Ferro Luzzi, G., Fromentin, V. and Weber, S. (2020), “Travailleurs frontaliers en Suisse : le hiatus persistant entre recherche et opinion publique”, Annales des Mines - Réalités industrielles, Vol. 3, pp. 88-92.
Flückiger, Y. and Kempeneers, P. (2007), “Evaluation de l’impact économique, social et financier des programmes de retour en emploi proposés par les «Maisons Hestia» à Genève”, Geneva, University of Geneva, Observatoire universitaire de l’emploi.
Fugate, M., Kinicki, A.J. and Ashforth, B.E. (2004), “Employability: A psycho-social construct, its dimensions, and applications”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 65 No. 1, pp. 14-38. Guerrero, S. (2001), “Quelle stratégie de carrière, pour quel salaire? L'exemple des cadres français”,
Gestion, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 12-17.
Garufo, F. (2014), “Identités et reconfigurations industrielles. Le cas de l’Arc jurassien (1950-1990) “, in A. Koukoutsaki-Monnier (Ed.), Identités (trans)frontalières au sein et autour de l’espace du Rhin supérieur, Nancy, Presses universitaires de Nancy - Editions Universitaires de Lorraine, pp.187-204.
Gatti, P., Ghislieri, C. and Cortese, C.G. (2017), “Relationships between followers’ behaviors and job satisfaction in a sample of nurses”, PloS one, Vol. 12 No. 10.
Giunchi, M., Emanuel, F., Chambel, M.J. And Ghislieri, C. (2016), “Job insecurity, workload and job exhaustion in temporary agency workers (TAWs) Gender differences”, Career
Development International, Vol. 21 No 1, pp. 3-18.
Greenhalgh, L. and Rosenblatt, Z. (1984), “Job insecurity: toward conceptual clarity”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 438-448.
Gowan, M.A. (2012), “Employability, well-being and job satisfaction following a job loss”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 27 No. 8, pp. 780-798.
Guillaume, C. and Pochic, S. (2010), “Mobilité internationale et carrières des cadres: figure impose ou pari risqué?”, Formation & Emploi, Vol. 112, pp. 39-52.
Hamman, P. (2005), “Mobilités et mobilisations transnationales en Europe: les associations de travailleurs frontaliers”, L’Harmattan, pp 264.
Hellgren, J. and Sverke, M. (2003), “Does job insecurity lead to impaired well-being or viceversa? Estimation of cross-lagged effects using latent variable modelling”, Journal of
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 215-236.
Hellgren, J., Sverke, M. and Isaksson, K. (1999), “A two-dimensional approach to job insecurity: Consequences for employee attitudes and well-being”, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 179-195
Hoobler, J.M. and Brass, D.J. (2006), “Abusive supervision and family undermining as displaced aggression”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 91 No. 5, pp. 1125-1133.
Inkson, K., Gunz, H., Ganesh, Shiv and Roper, J. (2012), “Boundaryless careers: Bringing back boundaries”, Organization Studies, Vol. 33 No. 3, p. 323-340.
INSEE (2016). 160 000 travailleurs frontaliers, INSEE ACAL Report, available at
http://www.epsilon.insee.fr/jspui/bitstream/1/40874/1/IA_ACAL_03.pdf (accessed 15/02/2021).
Irvine, D. M. and Evans, M. G. (1995), “Job satisfaction and turnover among nurses: integrating research findings across studies”, Nursing Research, Vol. 44, pp. 246-253.
Isel, A. and Kuhn, C. (2016), 160 000 travailleurs frontaliers, INSEE ACAL Report, available at http://www.epsilon.insee.fr/jspui/bitstream/1/40874/1/IA_ACAL_03.pdf (accessed 5/02/2019).
Jones, E. (2013), “Internationalization and employability: the role of intercultural experiences in the development of transferable skills”, Public Money and Management, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 95-104.
Judge, T.A., Thoresen, C.J., Bono, J. E. and Patton, G. K. (2001), “The job satisfaction–job performance relationship: A qualitative and quantitative review”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 127 No. 3, pp. 376-407.
Kaluza, A.J., Boer, D., Buengeler, C. and van Dick, R. (2020), “Leadership behaviour and leader self-reported well-being: A review, integration and meta-analytic examination”, Work Stress, Vol. 34, 34-56.
Kӧnig, C.J., Probst, T.M., Staffen, S. and Graso, M. (2011), “A Swiss-US comparison of the correlates of job insecurity”, Applied Psychology, Vol. 60 No. 1, pp 141-59.
Koustelios, A.D., Karabatzaki, D. and Kousteliou, I. (2004), “Autonomy and job satisfaction for a sample of Greek teacher”, Psychological Reports, Vol. 95 No. 3, pp. 883-886.
Knight, J. (2004), “Internationalization remodeled: Definition, approaches, and rationales”, Journal of Studies in International Education, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 5-31.
Lambert, E. G., Hogan, N. L. and Barton, S. M. (2001), “The impact of job satisfaction on turnover intent: a test of a structural measurement model using a national sample of workers”, the Social Science Journal, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 233-250.
Lee, C., Huang, G. H. and Ashford, S. J. (2018), “Job insecurity and the changing workplace: recent developments and the future trends in job insecurity research”, Annual Review of
Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, Vol. 5, pp. 9.1-9.25.
Lipman-Blumen, J. (2004), The allure of toxic leaders: Why we follow destructive bosses and corrupt politicians-and how we can survive them. Oxford University Press, New York. Lo Presti, A. and Pluviano, S. (2016), “Looking for a route in turbulent waters: Employability as a
compass for career success”, Organizational Psychology Review, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 192-211. Lu, H., Barriball, K. L., Zhang, X. and While, A.E. (2012), “Job satisfaction among hospital nurses revisited: a systematic review”, International Journal of Nursing Studies, Vol. 49 No. 8, pp. 1017-1038.
Lund, D.B. (2003), “Organizational culture and job satisfaction”, Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 219-236.
Lutz, A., Wodociag, S., Bollecker, M. (2018), “Upper Rhine cross-border commuters: exam of their relation to work and career”, Second International Conference: Healthier societies fostering healthy organizations: A cross-cultural perspective, 30 August-1 September, Florence. Lutz, A., Wodociag, S. and Bollecker, M. (2019), “Travailleurs transfrontaliers: étude de leurs
trajectoires de carrière”, Management & Avenir, Vol. 8, No. 114, pp. 65-91.
Mathieu, C., Neumann, C. S., Hare, R. D. and Babiak, P. (2014), “A dark side of leadership: Corporate psychopathy and its influence on employee well-being and job
satisfaction”, Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 59, pp. 83-88. Mayrhofer, U. (2011), Le management des firmes multinationales, Vuibert, Paris.
Masdonati, J. (2007), “La transition entre école et monde du travail: Préparer les jeunes à l’entrée en formation professionnelle”, Bern, Peter Lang.
Mazmanian, M., Orlikowski, W.J. and Yates, J. (2013), “The Autonomy Paradox. The Implications of Mobile Devices for Knowledge Professionals”, Organization Science, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 1337-1357.
McQuaid, R.W. and Lindsay, C. (2005), “The concept of employability”, Urban Studies, Vol. 42 No. 2, pp. 197-219.
Michailova, S. and Ott, D.L. (2018), “Linking international experience and cultural intelligence development: the need for a theoretical foundation”, Journal of Global Mobility, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 59-78.
Mohr, B., Roussel, B. and Renard, J-P. (1992), “Les frontaliers allemands en Suisse: évolution récente et mutations”, Espace Populations Sociétés, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 237-251.
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994), Psychometric Theory (McGraw-Hill Series in Psychology) (Vol. 3), McGraw-Hill, New York.
Observatoire des Territoires (2017), “Dynamiques de l’emploi transfrontalier en Europe et en France”, Available at http://www.observatoire-des-territoires.gouv.fr/observatoire-des-territoires/fr/dynamiques-de-lemploi-transfrontalier-en-europe-et-en-france (accessed 2/01/2019).
Observatoire Statistique Transfrontalier de l’arc Jurassien (2011), “Les travailleurs frontaliers franc-comtois dans l’Arc jurassien suisse”,
Pate, J. and Scullion, H. (2018), “The flexpatriate psychological contract: A literature review and future research agenda”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 29 No. 8, pp.1402-1425.
Pejtersen, J. H., Kristensen, T. S., Borg, V. and Bjorner, J. B. (2010), “The second version of the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire”, Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 8-24.
Piccoli, B., Callea, A., Urbini, F., Chirumbolo, A., Ingusci, E. and De Witte, H. (2017), “Job insecurity and performance: the mediating role of organizational identification”, Personnel Review, Vol. 46 No. 8, pp. 1508-1522.
Pigeron-Piroth, I. (2013). Philippe Hamman, Sociologie des espaces-frontières. Les relations transfrontalières autour des frontières françaises de l’Est, Presses universitaires de Strasbourg, coll. Études alsaciennes et rhénanes, Strasbourg.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2012), “Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 63, pp. 539-569.
Poon, J.M.L. (2004), “Effects of performance appraisal politics on job satisfaction and turnover intention”, Personnel Review, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 322-334.
Rafferty, A.E., Restubog, S.L.D. and Jimmieson, N.L. (2010), “Losing sleep: Examining the cascading effects of supervisors' experience of injustice on subordinates' psychological health”, Work and Stress, Vol. 24, pp. 36-55.
Reisel, W.D., Probst, T.M., Chia, S.-L., Maloles, C. and Kӧnig, C.J. (2010), “The effects of job insecurity on job satisfaction, organizational citizenship behavior, deviant behavior, and negative emotions of employees”, International Studies of Management & Organization, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 74-91.
Rothwell, A. and Arnold, J. (2007), “Self-perceived employability: Development and validation of a scale”, Personnel Review, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 23-41.
Sanfilippo, M. (2018), “Il lavoro di frontiera in Europa. Una prima approssimazione”, Studi Emigrazione, Vol. 311, pp. 401-418.
Savickas, M. L. (2012), “Life design: a paradigm for career intervention in the 21st century”, Journal of Counseling & Development, Vol. 90 No. 1, pp. 13-19.
Schaufeli, W.B. (2016), “Job insecurity research is still alive and kicking twenty years later: A commentary”, Australian Psychologist, Vol. 51 No. 1, pp. 32-35.
Schaufeli, W.B. and Taris, T.W. (2014), “A critical review of the job demands-resources model: Implications for improving work and health”, in Bauer, G. and Hämmig, O. (Eds.), Bridging occupational, organizational and public health, Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp. 43-68.
Schmidt, A.A. (2008), Develepment and validation of the Toxic Leadership Scale, Thesis, Ann Arbor, United States.
Schyns, B. and Schilling, J. (2013), “How bad are the effects of bad leaders? A meta-analysis of destructive leadership and its outcomes”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 138-158.
Silla, I., De Cuyper, N., Gracia, F.J., Peiró, J.M. and De Witte, H. (2009), “Job insecurity and well-being: Moderation by employability”, Journal of Happiness Studies, Vol. 10 No. 6, 739. Signore, F., Catalano, A., De Carlo, E., Madaro, A. and Ingusci, E. (2019), “The role of
employability in students during academic experience: a preliminary study through PLS-PM technique”, Electronic Journal of Applied Statistical Analysis, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 720-747. Simbula, S. (2010), “Daily fluctuations in teachers’ well-being: A diary study using the Job
Demands–Resources model”, Anxiety, Stress & Coping: An International Journal, Vol. 23, pp. 563-584.
Siu, O. (2002), “Predictors of job satisfaction and absenteeism in two samples of Hong Kong nurses”, Journal of Advanced Nursing, Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 218-229.
Skaalvik, E.M. and Skaalvik, S. (2014), “Teacher self-efficacy and perceived autonomy: Relations with teacher engagement, job satisfaction, and emotional exhaustion”, Psychological Reports, Vol. 114 No. 1, pp. 68-77.
Spagnoli, P. and Molinaro, D. (2020), “Negative (workaholic) emotions and emotional exhaustion: might job Autonomy have played a strategic role in workers with responsibility during the Covid-19 crisis lockdown?”, Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 10 No. 12, pp. 192.
Strüver, A. (2002), “Significant insignificance–boundaries in a borderless European Union: Deconstructing the Dutch German transnational labor market”,‐ Journal of Borderlands Studies, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 21-36.
Sverke, M., Hellgren, J. and Näswall, K. (2002), “No Security: a meta-analysis and review of job insecurity and its consequences”, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 242-264.
Takeuchi, R., Tesluk, P. E., Yun, S. and Lepak, D.P. (2005), “An integrative view of international experience”, Academy of Management Journal, 2005, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 85-100.
Tepper, B. J. (2000), “Consequences of abusive supervision”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 178-190.
Thau, S. and Mitchell, M.S. (2010), “Self-gain or self-regulation impairment? Tests of competing explanations of the supervisor abuse and employee deviance relationship through
perceptions of distributive justice perceptions”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 95 No. 6, pp. 1009-1031.
Valsangiacomo, N. (2001), “Separazioni e contatti. Una lettura storica di confini e frontiere alpini”, paper presented at the conference Confini del Grigioni Italiano, 14-15 October, Poschiavo. Van der Heijde, C.M. and Van der Heijden, B.I. (2006), “A competence based and ‐
multidimensional operationalization and measurement of employability”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 45 No. 3, pp. 449-476.
Van Dam, K. (2004), “Antecedents and consequences of employability orientation”, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 29-51.
Van Saane, N., Sluitter, J. K., Verbeek, J.H.A.M. and Frings-Dresen, M.H.W (2003), “Reliability and validity of instruments measuring job satisfaction—a systematic review”, Occupational Medicine, Vol. 53 No.3, pp. 191-200.
Winterton, J. and Haworth, N. (2013), “Employability”, in J. Arrowsmith and V. Pulignano (Eds.), The Transformation of Employment Relations in Europe: Institutions and Outcomes in the Age of Globalisation, London, Routledge, pp. 166-183.
Wodociag, S., Lutz A. and Ghislieri, C. (2019), “Les compétences interculturelles au cœur des attentes du marché de l’emploi?”, In Amann and Jaussaud (Eds.), Défis Culturels et Sociétaux du Management International, Vuibert, Paris.
World Medical Association of Helsinki (2001), “Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects”, Bulletin of the World Health Organization, Vol. 79, o 4, p. 373.
Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E. and Schaufeli, W.B. (2007), “The role of personal resources in the job demands-resources model”, International Journal of Stress
Management, Vol. 14, pp. 121-141.
Xanthopoulou, D. Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E. and Schaufeli, W.B. (2009), “Reciprocal
relationships between job resources, personal resources, and work engagement”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 74, pp. 235-244.
Yeh, H-J. (2015), “Job demands, job resources, and job satisfaction in East Asia”, Social Indicators Research, Vol. 121 No. 1, pp. 47-60.
Tables
Table 1. Demographic characteristics: cross-border workers and sedentary workers
CROSS-BORDER WORKERS (N = 101) SEDENTARYWORKERS (N = 149)
1. Gender (%) 55% female 60% female
2. Age (M / SD) 35.52 / 10.84 35.83 / 11.04 3. Permanent contract (%) 82% 87% 4. Country of employment (%) 84% Switzerland 12% Germany 4% Belgium or Luxembourg 100% France 5. Job position (%) 54% employees 26% executive or functionary 14% labourer 6% others 68% employees 19% executive or functionary 13% labourer 6. Seniority (M / SD) 10.43/9.94 11.63/9.99
Table 2. Means, standard deviations, Cronbach's alphas and correlations among the study variables in the whole sample (n = 250).
M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1. Job satisfaction 3.55 .88 .87 2. Autonomy 3.50 1.00 .36** .77 3. Toxic leadership 2.49 .76 -.28** -.16** .65 4. Job insecurity 1.94 .90 -.29** -.11** .23** .77 5. Occupational expertise 4.13 .76 .30** .16** -.05 -.26** .81
6. Optimization & anticipation 3.71 .88 .39** .23** -.02 -.20** .55** .86
7. Personal flexibility 3.56 .92 .19** .12** .16** -.06 .31** .42** .68
8. Gender (1 = female) - - .03 -.20** -.08 -.01 -.04 -.07 -.08
9. Age 35.71 10.94 -.08 .00 .08 -.03 .23* -.04 .04 .16*
-10. Job position (1 = employee) - - -.08 -.17* -.01 -.04 .03 -.06 -.07 .26** .01
