Would you like to become a union leader? Analysing leadership intentions through a generational lens

• Published date: 01 November 2023
• Author: Christopher Gordon Smith,Tingting Zhang,Lorenzo Frangi,Linda Duxbury
• Date: 01 November 2023
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/irj.12402

DOI: 10.1111/irj.12402

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Would you like to become a union leader?

Analysing leadership intentions through

a generational lens

Christopher Gordon Smith

1

|Tingting Zhang

2

|

Lorenzo Frangi

3

|Linda Duxbury

4

1

University of New Brunswick, Saint

John, Saint John, New Brunswick,

Canada

2

School of Labor and Employment

Relations, Univeristy of Illinois

Urbana‐Champaign, Urbana,

Illinois, USA

3

School of Management, University of

Quebec in Montreal, Montreal, Quebec,

Canada

4

Sprott School of Business, Carleton

University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Correspondence

Christopher Gordon Smith, University of

New Brunswick, Saint John, Saint John,

NB, Canada.

Email: christopher.g.smith@unb.ca

Abstract

Identifying the next generation of leaders is funda-

mental for union renewal. Taking a sequential

mixed methods approach using interview (n=25)

and survey (n= 4765)data,ourstudyseeksto

identify roadblocks members may face on the path

to union leadership. Specifically, we explore the

impact of union efficacy, perceived role ambigu-

ity and perceived work role overload on union

members' intentions to pursue a leadership role. We

found perceptions of union efficacy positively

influenced leadership intentions, while perceived

work role ambiguity and overload had a negative

impact. Generational cohort (Boomer, Gen X,

Millennial) moderated the relationship between

perceived work role overload and leadership inten-

tions, but not the other relationships in the model.

Findings from this study help unions develop

strategies to motivate members to take on leader-

ship roles.

Ind. Relat. 2023;54:425–444. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/irj

|

425

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution‐NonCommercial‐NoDerivs License, which permits

use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or

adaptations are made.

© 2023 The Authors. Industrial Relations Journal published by Brian Towers (BRITOW) and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

All authors are equally contributing co‐authors.

1|INTRODUCTION

The decline of union membership has motivated industrial relations scholars and unionists to

explore strategies to re‐empower unions (Fairbrother, 2015; Kumar & Schenk, 2013; Murray,

2017). Some proposed paths to renewal include building resources outside the union

movement, such as developing alliances with civil society organizations (Cranford & Ladd,

2003; Köhler & Calleja Jiménez, 2015). Other paths are internal and centre on the micro‐

foundation of renewal: the activism of union members (Darlington, 2018). Activism, the

voluntary participation of members in their union, is fundamental to developing the collective

fabric of a vibrant and mobilizable membership (Darlington, 2018). Participation in some union

activities, however, is more central than others in contributing to union strength, prominence,

and sustainability (Gall & Fiorito, 2012). Members who volunteer to take on union leadership

roles at the local level not only contribute to the quotidian functioning of local offices but can

also play a fundamental role in creating and nurturing lay‐member activism (Gall & Fiorito,

2012). Unions rely on these member‐leaders to knit together the threads of solidarity to bring

about Edwards' (1990) idea of the ‘collective worker’. Local union leaders who inspire,

inform and consult their members have been shown to spur rank‐and‐file members' willingness

to participate in the union (Cregan et al., 2009; Kwon, 2013; Metochi, 2002). Highly active,

dedicated union local leaders are central for the involvement and mobilization of other

members (Darlington, 2006,2009). The role of these leaders becomes even more important in

scattered workplaces to build and nurture cohesiveness and engagement among dispersed

workers, as demonstrated in the case of British transport workers (Darlington, 2009).

Recent research suggests that unions may face challenges finding new union members

willing to take on leadership roles (Darlington, 2018; Patel, 2013). Many unionists are

concerned that once the ‘Baby Boomer’generation retires, local unions will struggle to find

members willing to take over leadership among the younger generations—Gen Xers and

Millennials—even in traditionally highly unionized workplaces (Boris, 2015; Dufour‐Poirier &

Laroche, 2015; Hodder, 2014). If this is the case, it might be more difficult for unions to

mobilize workers and rebuild the power of the labour movement through strong, active

leadership. We argue, therefore, it is critical that researchers empirically investigate the extent

to which younger generations of union members are willing to become the next union leaders

and what factors might deter them from doing so.

We examined this question in the context of a large transportation union in the USA. This

case is of relevance for three central reasons. First, this union is one of the few remaining

bastions of American unionism, and its endurance and re‐empowerment could have a positive

spillover effect on other unions; conversely, a lack of members willing to take over as leaders

might inflict a major loss on unionism. Second, our case study union has a distribution of

workers across three generations of current workers (Boomers, Gen Xers and Millennials)

1

and

the union communicates available leadership positions to all members, allowing a better

understanding of the factors that may deter the pursuit of leadership. Finally, our case is

characterized by a scattered workplace, a growing reality for many occupations, making the

understanding of union local leadership central for union empowerment more generally

(Clark, 2021).

1

While generational cohort boundaries are thought to be ‘fuzzy’, we use the commonly employed birth‐year ranges to define the

respondents in our study as follows: Boomers: 1946–1964; Gen X: 1965–1979; Millennials: 1980–2000 (Lyons et al., 2015).

426

|

SMITH ET AL.