Portfolio working – a psychological analysis of the phenomenon
 
More details
Hide details
Submission date: 2014-08-23
Final revision date: 2014-10-07
Acceptance date: 2014-10-07
Online publication date: 2014-10-23
Publication date: 2014-10-23
 
Current Issues in Personality Psychology 2014;2(3):141–148
 
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
Background
It turns out from the latest Eurostat data that Poland holds the second place in Europe in terms of the number of so-called portfolio workers, i.e. persons who work for more than one employer. From the psychological point of view, there arises the question regarding the possible determinants of the mentioned phenomenon. Therefore the general purpose of this study is to present the personal and situational indicators of portfolio working.

Participants and procedure
Two hundred and eighteen portfolio workers and 218 workers employed in one workplace (i.e. monoworkers) participated in research using the following set of ‘paper-pencil’ techniques: a self-made survey, the Value Scale by Rokeach, the Formal Characteristics of Behaviour – Temperament Questionnaire by Zawadzki and Strelau, the Masculinity and Femininity Scale by Lipińska-Grobelny and Gorczycka, and the Organizational Climate Questionnaire by Kolb.

Results
Portfolio working is mainly determined by a number of personal variables (temperamental characteristics, values and spheres of motivation, intensity of masculinity and femininity). A specific role is played by values represented by portfolio workers. The discriminant analysis conducted in groups selected on the basis of working hours indicates that the prediction of participation of the examined persons in the group of portfolio workers with the greatest accuracy appeared in the case of a workload of 48 or more hours, next in the case of a smaller workload up to 47 hours, and finally for the whole group.

Conclusions
The examination of the phenomenon of portfolio working from the psychological perspective presents an important contribution to the discussion on work and directions of its transformations.
 
REFERENCES (22)
1.
Brown, D., & Gold, M. (2007). Academics on non-standard contracts in UK Universities: portfolio work, choice and compulsion. Higher Education Quarterly, 61, 439-460.
 
2.
Brzozowski, P. (1989). Skala Wartości Rokeacha. Polska adaptacja Value Survey M. Rokeacha. Podręcznik [Rokeach Values Scale. Polish adaptation of the Value Scale by M. Rokeach. Handbook]. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Compis.
 
3.
Chełpa, S. (1993). Walidacja Kwestionariusza Klimatu Organizacyjnego Kolba [Validation of Organizational Climate Questionnaire by Kolb]. Przegląd Psychologiczny, 34, 379-387.
 
4.
Clinton, M., Totterdell, P., & Wood, S. (2006). A grounded theory of portfolio working. Experiencing the smallest of small businesses. International Small Business Journal, 24, 179-203.
 
5.
Cohen, L., & Mallon, M. (1999). The transition from organizational employment to portfolio working: perceptions of ‘boundarylessness”. Work, Employment and Society, 13, 329-352.
 
6.
de Lange, A. H., Taris, T. W., Kompier, M. A. J., Houtman, I. L. D., & Bongers, P. M. (2003). The very best of the millennium: longitudinal research and the demand-control-(support) model. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 8, 282-305.
 
7.
European Working Conditions Survey 1991, 1996, 2000, 2005, 2010. Retrieved from http://www.eurofound.europa.eu..., August 2011.
 
8.
Fraser, J., & Gold, M. (2001). “Portfolio Workers”: autonomy and control amongst freelance translators. Work, Employment and Society, 15, 679-697.
 
9.
Hall, D. T. (1976). Careers in organizations. Glenview, Il: Scott, Foresman.
 
10.
Handy, Ch. (1989). The age of unreason. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
 
11.
Johnson, J. V., & Hall, E. M. (1988). Job strain, work place social support, and cardiovascular disease: A cross-sectional study random sample of the Swedish working population. American Journal of Public Health, 78, 1336-1342.
 
12.
Karasek, R. (1979). Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain. Implications for job redesign. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 285-307.
 
13.
Kimmel, J., & Powell, L. M. (1999). Moonlighting trends and related policy issues in Canada and the United States. Canadian Public Policy – Analyse de Politiques, 15, 207-231.
 
14.
Lipińska-Grobelny, A. (2014). Zjawisko wielopracy. Psychologiczne uwarunkowania i konsekwencje [Portfolio working. Psychological determinants and consequences]. Łódź: Wydawnictwo UŁ.
 
15.
Lipińska-Grobelny, A., & Gorczycka, K. (2011). Rekonstrukcja narzędzia do pomiaru płci psychologicznej [The reconstruction of a technique to assess psychological gender]. Przegląd Psycholo­giczny, 54, 179-192.
 
16.
Mallon, M. (1999). Going “portfolio”: Making sense of changing careers. Career Development International, 4, 358-369.
 
17.
Mandal, E. (2000). Podmiotowe i interpersonalne konsekwencje stereotypów związanych z płcią [Subjective and interpersonal consequences of gender stereotypes]. Katowice: Wydawnictwo UŚ.
 
18.
Miluska, J., & Boski, P. (1999). Męskość – kobiecość: zarys i poziomy analizy problematyki. In: J. Milu­ska & P. Boski (eds.), Męskość – kobiecość w perspektywie indywidualnej i kulturowej [Masculinity – Femininity in the individual and cultural context] (pp. 9-38). Warszawa: PWN.
 
19.
Mirvis, P. H., & Hall, D. T. (1994). Psychological success and the boundaryless career. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 365-380.
 
20.
Schwartz, S. H., & Bilsky, W. (1987). Toward a universal psychological structure of human values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 550-562.
 
21.
Wooten, K. C., Timmerman, T. A., & Folger R. (1999). The use of personality and the Five-Factor Model to predict new business ventures: from outplacement to start-up. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54, 82-101.
 
22.
Zawadzki, B., & Strelau, J. (1997). Formalna charak­terystyka zachowania – kwestionariusz temperamentu (FCZ-KT) [Formal Characteristics of Behaviour – Temperament Questionnaire]. Warszawa: PTP.
 
eISSN:2353-561X
ISSN:2353-4192