Tahira M. Probst

Adopting a life course perspective, we examined how prior experiences of unemployment might affect reactions to later experiences of job insecurity. In doing so, we applied a strong inference approach and pitted two theoretically derived predictions against each other, namely the stress sensitization and stress inoculation perspectives. According to the stress sensitization perspective, prior experience with unemployment would amplify negative reactions to job insecurity. In contrast, the stress inoculation perspective suggests that individuals with prior unemployment experiences might exhibit attenuated negative reactions to job insecurity. This is because such episodes are appraised as more normative throughout one’s career and are seen as an obstacle that can be successfully overcome. We tested our assumptions using four different archival datasets (total N = 1638) from the US and Germany, while considering self-evaluative, affective, attitudinal, performance, and health-related outcomes. Studies 1 to 3 found stronger support for the stress inoculation hypothesis, whereby individuals with prior unemployment experiences reacted less negatively to current job insecurity. In a comparison of explanatory mediating mechanisms in study 4, results indicated that the form of the interaction might depend on what is being triggered by perceived job insecurity (i.e., exacerbated feelings of frustration as reflecting the stress sensitization mechanism vs. attenuated relative deprivation as reflecting the stress inoculation mechanism). By adding a life course perspective to the study of job insecurity, our research broadens the investigation of boundary conditions. We discuss the role of country-level social security and time of data collection to explain the pattern of findings.

This policy brief analyzes the effects of reclassifying large swaths of the federal civilian workforce currently appointed to the competitive service into Schedule F (Policy/Career Schedule) appointments. We review the policy when it was first introduced in 2020 and reinstated with amendments in 2025. In doing so, we draw from decades of extant literature within the organizational sciences to analyze the validity of one of its main assertions, that is, moving federal workers toward at-will employment is beneficial. Our analysis shows that, as it currently stands, the proposed reclassification into Schedule F would generate widespread, chronic job insecurity and fail to improve federal workers’ performance or accountability, in addition to other physical and psychological adverse consequences. It would also result in significant, negative outcomes for federal agencies in terms of their reduced ability to attract and retain competent civil servants, lower economic efficiency, and ultimately negatively impact the customers of federal agencies by increasing costs for lower quality governmental services.