Research has consistently shown adverse consequences of job insecurity. Such adversity includes poorer mental and physical health as well as reduced well-being. Moreover, findings suggest that job insecurity increases interference between work and family domains. While most job insecurity research focuses on quantitative aspects, including overall worries regarding the future existence of a job, there is a qualitative dimension which includes worries about losing valued characteristics of the job. Studies of the two dimensions suggest that quantitative and qualitative job insecurity have diverse effects on different health-related outcomes. This makes it meaningful to investigate whether and how individuals and groups vary in their job insecurity perceptions across these two dimensions. While most studies have taken on a variable-oriented approach focusing on relationships between variables and the identification of predictors and consequences in specific populations, it tends to neglect variation between individuals. A person-oriented approach, including for instance latent profile analysis, uses the variation between individuals to form groups of individuals with similar variability. This study investigates such individual differences in perceptions of quantitative and qualitative job insecurity to go beyond categorizations of high and low job insecurity and forward the understanding of how individuals within a population may vary in their experiences. Specifically, the aim was to explore whether it would be possible to identify different job insecurity profiles among women and men working full-time. Moreover, variations between profiles in work/home interference, health, and well-being were investigated.

We invited working women and men with positions requiring a higher education, aged 32-58 years and residing in Sweden, to a questionnaire study (response rate: 56 per cent). The analysis included self-ratings of quantitative and qualitative job insecurity, work/home interference, health, and well-being, and demographics, from 1169 full-time working adults (52.4 per cent women). Latent profile analysis was performed to identify profiles. Subsequent analyses included profile comparisons of demographics, work/home interference, health, and well-being. Four different job insecurity profiles were identified: 1) Secure (n = 715), 2) Secure: quality concerned (n = 238), 3) Insecure: employment concerned (n = 149), and 4) Insecure (n = 67). Comparing the profiles, significant differences emerged for work/home interference (i.e., family/work conflict), self-rated health, and well-being. As would be expected, the Secure had better self-rated health and well-being than the others, while the finding for family/work conflict seemed less consistent.

Obviously, the study design limits conclusions regarding causality. Also, the study included full- time workers with a higher education which limits generalization. Yet, it was possible to distinguish different job insecurity profiles also in more privileged populations. Although the Secure profile was by far the largest, other profiles were characterized by concerns regarding overall insecurity, the employment, or job qualities. Using a person-oriented approach, this study adds to the fine-grained understanding of individual differences of job insecurity as an occupational stressor. This is important to facilitate targeted communication to vulnerable groups when organizational resources are limited, which, in turn, is key for developing a sustainable working life.