An empirical assessment of the multidimensionality of union participation

Journal of Management, Winter, 1993 by Aaron Cohen

Union participation is a concept that has received widespread attention from theorists, researchers, and policy makers. A substantial body of literature has developed around this issue, stressing several reasons for its importance. Huszczo (1983) argued that although attitudes of union members toward their union are often favorable, a relative lack of participation by members in union activities has been of great interest to union leaders and researchers over the years. Anderson (1978) emphasized the importance of union

participation as an   indicator of the quality of union democracy. It was
concluded by Child,         Loveridge and Warner (1973) that a generally low

proportion of members actively participating in union meetings and elections indicates inadequate operation of union democracy. Ramaswamy (1977) argued that participation has two clear consequences. First, it creates a sense of community in the rank-and-file. This sense is particularly pronounced among

those sections of the membership which   are drawn into the union for reasons
other than job interest. Secondly,         participation has the capacity to
generate its own defence against oligarchy.   There is consensus in the

literature that participation in unions may take many forms (Klandermans, 1986). However, the term union participation has been used to denote many different forms of participation within the union. For example, McShane (1986a; 1986b), Glick, Mirvis and Harder (1977) as well as Hoyman and Stallworth (1987) have used the term to refer to participation in union activities, while Anderson (1978) used it to refer to other forms of participation such as perceived participation in decision-making and actual participation at meetings. Klandermans (1984a; 1984b; 1986) used the term in measuring the willingness to take part in moderate/militant action. The ambiguity of the term and the differences among forms of union participation has led to concern by some researchers in this area. Martin (1986) argued that there is an overlap in the literature among the concepts of militancy, striking and participation in union activities. Klandermans (1986) argued that union participation is multidimensional. Not only is union participation made up of several dimensions,he claimed, but the various forms require different explanations. Strauss (1977)maintained that it is difficult to provide systematic accounts

of which         determinants pertain to which forms of participation, as
determinants of one    form of union participation may not be determinants of

another. The purpose of this research is to explore empirically the

multidimensionality of union        participation. This article examines
similarities and differences among six     common forms of union

participation: union commitment, participation in decisionmaking, participation in union activities, attitudinal militancy, service in e lected offices and propensity to strike. At this stage of the research on unionparticipation, the need is to develop a clear taxonomy of forms of union participation (Klandermans, 1986). There is a need to validate empirically whether or not the various forms previously examined are independent constructs.The next step is to explore the different mechanisms and processes that affect the independent forms of union participation because characteristics and circumstances that motivate and constrain one form may have little or no effect on others. If research regarding union participation is to remain valid, the nature of the relationships among the various forms needs to be clarified. From a practical viewpoint, McShane (1986a) argued that developing a model of union participation would have significant ramifications for union government research. From the organizational approach, the survival and strength of a unioncome from the motivation, ability and opportunity of members to fill the established roles and to perform the acts required by the organization. By specifying these acts in terms of multidimensional constructs and measures, researchers will be able to understand the dynamics of union participation more clearly and, possibly, assist unions in their quest for greater

membership      involvement and increased organizational strength. Moreover,
this knowledge     could assist union leaders in plans for increasing union
participation by       applying different tactics to different forms of

participation. From a managerial perspective, a better understanding of the forms and sources of union participation has several potential implications. First, some forms of participation, such as striking, have a direct effect upon productivity. Second,understanding whether union participation is a result of union

structure and    effectiveness or dissatisfaction with management operation
will enable          management to improve its methods in employee management.

Third, exploring how unions deal with their attempts to increase participation (despite the fact thatunions do not compensate their members for participation) can assist managers intheir search for ways to increase positive attitudes and behaviors of their employees. Finally, relating union participation to organizational performance measures might well assist