The role of management and trade union leadership on dual commitment: The mediating effect of the workplace relations climate

• Date: 01 July 2018
• Author: Olivier Doucet,Marc‐Antonin Hennebert,Chloe Fortin‐Bergeron
• Published date: 01 July 2018
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12191

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

The role of management and trade union

leadership on dual commitment: The mediating

effect of the workplace relations climate

Chloe Fortin‐Bergeron

1

|Olivier Doucet

2

|Marc‐Antonin Hennebert

2

1

Cardiff Business School, Cardiff University

2

Department of Human Resources

Management, HEC Montréal

Correspondence

Chloe Fortin‐Bergeron, Postdoctoral

Researcher, Cardiff Business School, Cardiff

University, Colum Drive, Cardiff CF10 3EU,

UK.

Email: chloe.fortin‐bergeron@hec.ca

Funding information

Social Sciences and Humanities Research

Council of Canada, Grant/Award Number:

430‐2014‐00064; HEC Montreal (internship

grant)

Abstract

This article examines the effect of transformational and laisser‐faire

leadership on the part of local union leaders and immediate supervi-

sors on the dual commitment of unionised workers. Building on the

social information processing perspective, it is suggested that these

leadership styles are linked to commitment through the workplace

relations climate (WRC). Based on a sample of 834 unionised

workers, our results suggest that WRC represents an important

mechanism explaining the effect of the immediate supervisor's lead-

ership in unionised settings. Results also show that transformational

leadership on the part of union representatives is positively linked

to union and organisational commitment. This article contributes

to the WRC and dual commitment literatures by going beyond

structural and institutional explanations and considering relational

and actor‐related variables, such as leadership styles.

KEYWORDS

commitment, dualcommitment, immediate supervisor,leadership,

union representative, workplace relations climate

1|INTRODUCTION

In an economic environment marked by high international competition, the need to generate greater organisational

flexibility and distinguished performance has led many organisations to develop workplace relations aimed at

cultivating commitment among workers (Chew & Chan, 2008; Pyman, Holland, Teicher, & Cooper, 2010). Over the

last three decades, efforts have been made by unionised firms to shift to a more cooperative approach with unions

(Valizade, Ogbonnaya, Tregaskis, & Forde, 2016), as the more traditional, conflictual approach to labour–management

relations has become unproductive, affecting their chance of survival (Balser & Winkler, 2012; Deery & Iverson,

2005). This is especially true for sectors such as manufacturing and the automobile and aerospace industries, which

have been marked by major technological changes and new production models, such as lean or just‐in‐time

production (Kochan et al., 2008; Martinez Lucio & Stuart, 2002).

Received: 19 January 2017 Revised: 24 January 2018 Accepted: 29 January 2018

DOI: 10.1111/1748-8583.12191

462 © 2018 John Wiley & Sons Ltd Hum Resour Manag J. 2018;28:462–478.wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/hrmj

Establishing such collaborative workplace relations nevertheless remains controversial, as some scholars state

that it can weaken union power and ultimately affect workers' union commitment (Kelly, 2004; Roche, 2009).

However, an opposite position can be found in the extant literature on dual commitment (Angle & Perry, 1986; Ezirim,

Nwibere, & Emecheta, 2011; Magenau, Martin, & Peterson, 1988; Redman & Snape, 2016), which has shown that a

cooperative workplace environment—that is, a workplace in which the union, labour, and management are seen

to maintain a cooperative relationship based on trust, respect, and the recognition of mutual interests (Hammer,

Currall, & Stern, 1991)—can result in workers being dually committed to both their employing organisation and their

union (e.g., Bemmels, 1995; Kim & Rowley, 2006; Lee, 2004; Shan, Hu, Wang, & Liu, 2014; Snape & Chan, 2000).

Researchers who have investigated the concept of dual commitment have thus contributed to our understanding

of union–management collaboration by showing that such workplace relations do not necessarily result in a weaker

relationship between the union and its members and can thus be positive and even desirable in unionised organisa-

tions (Balser & Winkler, 2012; Robinson, Griffeth, Allen, & Lee, 2012; Valizade et al., 2016).

Despite the positive outcomes associated with a favourable workplace relations climate (WRC), few studies have

investigated its antecedents or, more specifically, the role of union and management representatives (Opina & Yaroni,

2003). This is quite surprising given the fact that many authors have acknowledged that the development of

leadership skills among these local actors is essential in establishing and maintaining the kind of collaborative

workplace relations that can generate real outcomes in terms of workers' attitudes (Balser & Winkler, 2012; Eaton

& Rubinstein, 2008).

From this perspective, the aim of this article is to demonstrate how the role of leadership styles of both manage-

ment and union first‐line representatives can contribute to creating a WRC that is conducive to dual commitment

among workers. Building on the social information processing perspective (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978), we argue that

the leadership styles of both representatives will contribute to creating an individual cognitive representation (Parker

et al., 2003) of the work environment that will (or will not) psychologically allow workers to be dually committed to

their union and their employing organisation through the workplace relations climate. The leadership behavioursasso-

ciated with transformational and laisser‐faire leadership theories appear to be an interesting avenue to explore in this

respect, as studies have shown that these behaviours have a significant influence on various types of organisational

climates (Sarros, Cooper, & Santora, 2008; Zohar & Tenne‐Gazit, 2008) and on attitudes and behaviours in both union

and organisational settings (Cregan, Bartram, & Stanton, 2009; Fortin‐Bergeron, Doucet, & Hennebert, 2013; Judge &

Piccolo, 2004; Twigg, Fuller, & Hester, 2007).

The contribution of this study is twofold. First, it extends our understanding of the factors shaping the nature of

the WRC by examining more relational, actor‐related variables, such as leadership style. Thus, it goes beyond the

structural and institutional explanations that have traditionally been mobilised in WRC studies (Pyman et al., 2010)

and dual commitment studies (Carson, Carson, Birkenmeier, & Toma, 2006; Shan et al., 2014). Second, by considering

the mutual influence of the leadership style of both union and management first‐line representatives, it examines how

each of these two types of local actors can, respectively, promote or impair dual commitment on the part of workers.

It thus builds on previous research on dual commitment (Angle & Perry, 1986; Kim & Rowley, 2006; Redman & Snape,

2016), which has mainly sought to measure and demonstrate the existence of this phenomenon.

From a practical standpoint, our results should have some implications for unionised organisations, where formal

(e.g., partnership and joint committees) and informal (e.g., continuous communication) forms of collaboration are a

function of workplace relations. Moreover, by identifying specific leadership behaviours that can either positively

contribute to or impair the union–management relationship, our results aim to help HR departments and local unions

orient leadership development training to support their respective leaders in maintaining a collaborative WRC and

enhancing their workers' commitment. In this respect, our analysis of data on a firm in the Canadian aerospace

industry represents a relevant examination of the particular contribution of the leadership of union and management

representatives in the development of a WRC that is conductive to commitment among workers. Indeed, this industry

is marked by strong international competition and new technology, which have led firms around the world to under-

take a significant flexibilisation of work organisation and develop more collaborative relations between management,

FORTIN‐BERGERON ET AL.463