The consequences of dual and unilateral commitment to the organisation and union

• Author: Tom Redman,Ed Snape
• Published date: 01 January 2016
• Date: 01 January 2016
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12093

The consequences of dual and unilateral

commitment to the organisation and union*

Tom Redmanand Ed Snape, Durham BusinessSchool, Universityof Durham, Mill Hill

Lane, Durham City, DH13LB, UK

Human Resource Management Journal, Vol 26,no 1, 2016, pages 63–83

This article examines the patternand consequences of commitmentto organisation and unionamongst union

members in a UK National Health Service Trust. Those who perceived the industrial relations climate as

positive were more likely to be dually committed to both organisation and union. As anticipated, union

commitment predicted union citizenship behaviours and intent to quit the union. However, organisational

commitment predicted intent to quit the organisation but not organisational citizenship behaviour, which

was predicted by union commitment. Findings suggest that thosewith a unilateral commitment to the union

are more likelythan the dually committedto engage in citizenshipbehaviours aimed at helpingfellow members

and colleagues, perhaps because they feelunconstrained by any strong loyaltyto the organisation.

Contact: Ed Snape, Durham Business School, University of Durham, Mill Hill Lane, Durham City,

DH1 3LB, UK. Email: Edward.Snape@Durham.ac.uk

Keywords: dual commitment; union commitment; organisational commitment; union citizenship

behaviour; organisational citizenship behaviour

INTRODUCTION

There is now a sizeable literature on employees’commitment to their employer and to their

union, with studies on the antecedents of organisational (Meyer et al., 2002; Klein et al.,

2014) and union commitment (Bamberger et al., 1999; Monnot et al., 2011; Deery et al.,

2014; Fiorito et al., 2015), and on the possibility of employees being dually committed to both (Reed

et al., 1994; Cohen, 2005; Kim and Rowley, 2006; Robinson et al., 2012; Akoto, 2014). The findings

suggest that, in spite of the possibility that commitment to employer and union might be

considered as conflicting, dual loyalty is very common, particularly where the climate of employee

relations is relatively harmonious. However, very little research has been conducted on the

consequences of dual commitment. Gordon and Ladd (1990) argue that the significance of dual

commitment must ultimately be assessed by its impact on employee attitudes and behaviours.

Furthermore, much of the dual commitment literature has been North American, and very few

studies have been conducted in the UK, with the rare exception of Guest and Dewe (1991).

In this article, our aims are twofold. First, we explore the pattern of commitment to

organisationand union amongst union membersin a UK National Health Service (NHS) Trust.

Our concern is with the extent to which the two commitments can be seen as competing or

complementary. The evidence base is rather mixed on the complementary-competing nature

of union and organisational commitment (Angle and Perry, 1986; Fuller and Hester, 1998;

Kim and Rowley, 2006), and we seek to clarify the nature of the relationship by examining

the role of a contextual moderator, industrial relations (IR) climate. Second, we examine the

consequences of commitment for employee attitudes and behaviour, including intentions to

* It is with great sadness that we report the untimely death of Tom Redman whilst this article

was in press.Tom was a good and modest man, as well as an outstandingscholar, a committed

teacher, a skilled administrator, and a very supportive colleague. Hewill be greatly missed.

HUMAN RESOURCEMANAGEMENT JOURNAL, VOL26, NO 1, 2016 63

©2016 John Wiley& Sons Ltd.

Pleasecite thisarticle in press as:Redman, T. and Snape,E. (2016) ‘Theconsequences of dualand unilateral commitmentto the organisationand union’.

HumanResource ManagementJournal 26:1,63–83.

doi: 10.1111/1748-8583.12093

bs_bs_banner

quit the organisation and the union, and the performance of organisational and union

citizenship behaviours. A key question is whether or not dual commitment adds anything to

our understanding of attitudes and behaviour, independently of commitment to company

and union (Gordon andLadd, 1990; Bemmels, 1995).

Developing further understanding of the role of dual commitment is important, as the

fostering of dual commitment is closely linked to more cooperative management-union

relationships in the workplace. The achievement of more cooperative union-management

relationships can be seen as a key objective of recent IR developments in the UK, such as the

introductionof formal partnershipagreements in the workplace.Partnership workinghas been

especially prominent in the NHS (Heaton et al., 2000, 2002; Kinge, 2014).

Dual commitment has important implications for HRM. One suggestion in the HRM

literature is that the development of HRM practices in order to win the organisational

commitment of employees may have also had the effect of undermining employees’

commitment to their unions. A related argument here is that HRM practices are a substitute

for unions (Machin and Wood, 2005). Thus, a deeper understanding of the consequences of

union and organisational commitment should provide insights into such debates. Further,

the consequences of commitment to the organisation and the union have considerable

implications for outcomes of importance in HRM, such as employees’willingness to go the

extra mile at work and their quit rates. For example, a recent study of unionised banking

employees in Australia found that union commitment predicted unioncitizenship behaviours,

which in turn reduced employee absence levels (Deery et al., 2014).

The article begins with a brief survey of the literature on dual commitment. We then present our

empirical work, before drawing some conclusions and discussing the implications of our findings.

LITERATURE AND HYPOTHESES

Commitment to organisation and to union

Organisational commitment has been defined as the ‘binding of an individual to an

organisation’(Gordon et al., 1980: 480)and is usually measured as an attitude involvinga sense

of identification and loyalty. This ‘attitudinal’approach to commitment may be distinguished

from ‘behavioural’commitment, the latter involving the individual becoming bound to the

organisation because of sunk investments and ‘side bets’in the employment relationship. The

attitudinal approach has received the greater attention in the commitment literature overall.

The union commitment literature has essentially transferred the notion of organisational

commitment into a union context (Gordon et al.,1980).

It might be expected that commitment to organisation and to union would be a source of role

conflict, involving cognitive dissonance, particularly if union and employer are seen to be in conflict

(Festinger, 1957). The behaviours expected of the committed union member, including actively

supporting the union and perhaps participating in industrial action from time to time, may bring

the individual into conflict with the employer.At the very least, the individual may face a choice in

allocating time and energy to behaviours that express support for the union or the organisation.

Indeed, classicunitarist theory in IR conceptualises the employingorganisation has havinga

single set of goals and shared values (Fox, 1971; Cullinane and Dundon, 2014). This thus

suggests that a committed employee is one who is attached to the organisation as a whole.

Unitaristtheory has long been challenged as an adequateexplanation for workplacebehaviour,

but organisationalbehaviour research has oftentreated organisational commitment in a global

and monolithicway (Chan et al., 2006). However,the longstanding andcontinuing evidence on

organisationaland union commitment supportsa more pluralistic (Ackers,2014) interpretation

Dual commitment

64 HUMANRESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL,VOL 26, NO 1, 2016

©2016 John Wiley& Sons Ltd.