It is not just what you say, but how you say it: A case study exploring union‐member communications

• Date: 01 March 2020
• Published date: 01 March 2020
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/irj.12278
• Author: Christopher Smith,Linda Duxbury

It is not just what you say, but how you say

it: A case study exploring union-member

communications

Christopher Smith and Linda Duxbury, Dr.

ABSTRACT

This paper presents key findings from a multimethod study analysing the communica-

tion practices of a large American labour union through a generational cohort lens.

Survey data were used to compare how the union communicates information to its

members with how participants would like to receive this information. Interview data

were analyzed to help us better understand union members’perceptions of their

union’s communication practices and how these could be improved. This research

determined that union members wanted the union to make more of an effort to use

face-to-face communication practices. Younger union members want their union to

make more use of electronic communication technologies.

1 INTRODUCTION

Union membership density and bargaining power have been in marked decline over

much of the industrialised world in recent decades and not least in the United

States (Rosenfeld, 2014; Visser, 2006). Transformations in the terrain of engagement

have been explored and highlighted by researchers: the imposition of hostile laws;

shifts in employment from manufacturing to services; the move from secure core oc-

cupations to insecure, temporary and fractional posts; globalisation and offshoring;

and the spread and deepening of neoliberal policies of de-regulation and privatisation.

(Hodder, 2014; Kochan, Riordan, Kowalski, Khan, & Yang, 2019; Murray, 2017;

Rosenfeld, 2014). The above factors have limited unions’access to the workplace,

made it harder for workers to join unions and reduced unions’ability to socialise so-

ciety and younger workers into the benefits of unionism.

To remain relevant, unions need to identify tactics that will allow them to reverse

this long-standing decline in their numbers. More specifically, they need to engage

in activities that will contribute to union renewal—“a process of change to rebuild

the organisational and institutional strength of the labour movement (so that it will

be) capable of defending and advancing the interests and (the) rights of workers”

(Kumar, 2012, p. 2). The question remains, however, as to how unions can renew

when many of the factors contributing to their decline are outside their control? Re-

cent research in the area (Gall & Fiorito, 2012; Rivers & Truitt, 2014; Benson and

❒Christopher Smith, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario Canada and Linda Duxbury, Carleton

University, Ottawa, Ontario Canada. *Correspondence: Chris Smith, Carleton University, Ottawa, ON,

Canada.

Email: christophersmith4@cmail.carleton.ca

Industrial Relations Journal 51:1–2, 2–33

ISSN 0019-8692

© 2019 Brian Towers (BRITOW) and John Wiley & Sons Ltd

Brown, 2010) provides one possible answer—they can focus their efforts on improv-

ing their internal processes so that they provide more value to members.

This paper reports on two studies (one quantitative and one qualitative) under-

taken with a large American union to explore the utility of such an approach.

1

Our

research focuses on one key internal process—communication between a union and

its members (i.e. union–member communication)—with the goal of elucidating: (i)

how the union communicates information to its members; (ii) union members’prefer-

ences with respect to union–member communications; (iii) the types of changes in

union–member communication practices desired by union members; and (iv) how

generational cohort impacts each of these issues.

A substantive body of research exists elucidating the importance of union–member

communications practices. Studies range from early work of the Webbs (1894) and

Michels (1911) to more recent studies by writers such as Geelan and Hodder

(2017). Of particular relevance to this paper is research by Rivers and Truitt (2014),

which argues that unions with effective communication processes should be more able

to broadcast their vision, goals, values and strategy to members throughout the orga-

nisation and a study by Kerr and Waddington (2014) linking effective union–member

communication to increases in union member engagement and participation and,

ultimately, union renewal. Our paper builds on these studies by looking at union

members’perceptions of union–member communication practices through a genera-

tional cohort lens.

The inclusion of generational cohort in any study on union renewal is supported by

data showing that the number of younger workers who belong to and participate in

union activities has declined over time (Cates, 2014; Gall & Fiorito, 2012; Bailey,

Price, Esders, & McDonald, 2010; Geelan, 2015, Hodder, 2014). Cates (2014) reports

that baby boomers (born 1945–1964) make up the greatest proportion of the union

movement’s membership and have higher levels of union participation than their

colleagues who belong to the two younger generational cohorts: Generation X (born

1965–1979) and millennials (born 1980–2000). This study seeks to offer suggestions

on how unions can reverse these trends by identifying how unions could change their

internal communication processes so that they are more relevant to their younger

members.

This research adds to the growing (but limited) body of empirical research, linking

generations and unions (Cates, 2014; Smith & Duxbury, 2019; Smith, Halinski &

Duxbury, 2019) and communication between unions and their members (Rivers &

Truitt, 2014). It also provides practical information to union leaders on how to target

their communications to different generations of members. Such actions should help

the union movement attract, integrate and engage ‘younger workers’(Dufour-Poirier

& Laroche, 2015; Hodder, 2014). This study also contributes to the theory of

generations by providing insight into relationship between generational cohort and

communication preferences (Campbell, Twenge, & Campbell, 2017).

We begin our paper by providing an overview of the research that has motivated

and informed our studies. We then outline the methodologies used in the two

studies referred to in this paper (quantitative and then qualitative) before discussing

1

A multimethod (survey and interviews) study with a large labor union identified a number of problems

with how the union communicates information to its members and suggestions for improvement. Members

want their union to make more use of face-to-face and electronic communication technologies. Problems

and solutions were associated with generational cohort.

3UNION TO MEMBER COMMUNICATION

© 2019 Brian Towers (BRITOW) and John Wiley & Sons Ltd

our results. The key findings from the two studies are integrated in the final section of

the paper.

2 LITERATURE REVIEW

The literature review begins with an introduction to the generational cohort concept.

We then discuss union communication and its role in renewal. The section concludes

with a discussion of why attitudes towards union communication may vary with gen-

erational cohort.

2.1 Generational cohort

Mannheim’s (1952) Theory of Generations argues that people who are born within a

similar span of time, in a similar geographic location and cultural context will expe-

rience and interpret events similarly. Three generational cohorts—those who share

a‘collective memory’that goes on to shape the way they think and behave—are

prominently active within the workforce today: baby boomers, Generation X and

millennials (Lyons & Kuron, 2014).

Despite a growing body of research in the area, there remains an ongoing debate as

to the validity of the generational cohort construct. On the one side of the debate,

Rudolph and Zacher (2018) argue that we should abandon the pursuit of generational

research, providing a list of criticisms of the concept to support their claim. On the

other side of the debate, Lyons, Urick, Kuron and Schweitzer (2015) and Lyons

and Kuron (2014) establish the validity of the theory and refute those who criticise

its use. We provide a short summary of this debate below.

Rudolph and Zacher (2018) claim that the generational cohort concept is overly de-

terministic, leading to simplified stereotypes that do not reflect reality. This view is

countered by Lyons et al. (2015) who state that generational research does not aim

to create stereotypes meant to describe all within a cohort, but rather prototypes,

which researchers can either support or refute with further research in more contexts.

Rudolph and Zacher (2018) also note that it is difficult (if not impossible) to truly

know if a difference between members of different generational cohorts can be attrib-

uted to actual cohort differences as opposed to the ageing process (physically, men-

tally and socially) or general societal changes. Lyons et al. (2015) contest this idea

by pointing out that the human life cycle that drives ‘ageing’effects is not static but

rather changes over time alongside society and that from a theoretical perspective,

generation should be viewed as a confluence of age/cohort/period. They reinforce

this claim by noting that people are waiting longer to start families than they did in

the past, which acts to push back steps in the life cycle. While acknowledging that life

cycle does produce individual differences in peoples’behaviours and attitudes, they

also argue that research involving life cycle stage (or age) should focus on compari-

sons between people who have experienced similar steps in the cycle at the same time,

that is, those within the same generational cohort.

Finally, Rudolph and Zacher (2018) argue that there is little empirical evidence for

the existence of generational differences and cite several studies (e.g. Costanza,

Badger, Fraser, Severt, & Gade, 2012; Zabel, Biermeier-Hanson, Baltes, Early, &

Shepard, 2017) to support their assertion. Lyons and Kuron (2014) counter with a

meta-analysis identifying research reporting cross-cohort differences in personality

traits (e.g. individualism, neuroticism, narcissism and self-esteem are negatively asso-

ciated and empathy is positively associated with cohort age), work values and work

4 Chris Smith and Linda Duxbury

© 2019 Brian Towers (BRITOW) and John Wiley & Sons Ltd