Types of union participators over time: Toward a person‐centered and dynamic model of participation

Abstract

Previous research on union participation has been disjointed, with no clear consensus on the definition and nature of participation.Additionally, few studies have examined how participation changes over time, with those that have finding mixed results regarding its stability. We propose that these mixed and inconsistent findings are due largely to past research focusing on overall levels of participation, ignoring differences in how individuals participate. To remedy this, we adopted a person-centered approach to identify different types of union participators. Using a large sample of union members, we conducted latent transition analysis and found six union participator classes: high participators, leadership participators, formal union promoters, informal union promoters, silent supporters, and non-participators. In addition, we examined how individuals changed membership across two time points (separated by 6 years), antecedents of class membership (role tenure and union commitment), and outcomes (freerider intentions and actual financial contributions to the union's political action fund). The six classes differed uniquely, in terms of the ways people participate, changes in how people participate over time, what predicted class membership, and how class membership impacts two outcomes. The current study demonstrates that person-centered approaches can both clarify previous conflicting findings within the participation literature and predict meaningful outcomes. K E Y W O R D S latent transition analysis, person-centered analysis, unions, union commitment, union participation Personnel Psychology. 2020;73:271-304.wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/peps

Another day, another chance: Daily workplace experiences and their impact on creativity

“…We examined a two‐profile model, subsequently increasing the number of profiles until the models were no longer parsimonious ( cf . Bennett et al, 2016; McKay et al, 2020). To avoid local maxima issues, analyses were conducted with 2000 random starts and 200 final stage optimizations (Hipp & Bauer, 2006).…”

“…First, we align theoretical complexity with analysis by using a person‐centered approach (i.e., latent profile analysis [LPA]) to detect daily workplace experience profiles. This approach is growing in popularity in the OB literature (e.g., Kam et al, 2016; McKay et al, 2020; Wang & Hanges, 2011) as it uncovers latent subgroups indiscernible via variable‐centered approaches (Wang & Hanges, 2011). Indeed, scholars have noted limitations with variable‐centered approaches for testing complex interactionist climate theories for decades (Drazin & Van de Ven, 1985).…”

Multiple jobholding motivations and experiences: A typology and latent profile analysis.

“…However, what scholars have deemed the “best” model for their data do not always meet these exact criteria. For example, the LMR is not always reported (e.g., Kabins et al, 2016; McKay et al, 2020; Seo et al, 2018), nor does the “best” model always have a significant LMR (e.g., Shockley et al, 2021). Further, it is not uncommon for the LMR and BLRT to be at odds (with one significant and the other not).…”

Becoming a union leader in an unfavorable industrial relations system

“…Personal development does not depend exclusively on reaching powerful positions within the union hierarchy, but rather it can be attained through other types of achievements, such as individual autonomy and balancing union activity with family (Kirton, 2006(Kirton, , 2018Kirton and Healy, 2004). Union participation is a multidimensional phenomenon and a nonhierarchical path for individuals (Morin et al 2021;McKay et al, 2020;Roitter et al, 2020).…”

“…In recent years, empirical studies on union leaders’ long-term participation have been scarce and geographically limited, which has impoverished the debate on this important issue (Gall and Fiorito, 2012:718; Kirton and Healy 2013:196; McKay et al, 2020:2). Moreover, as it will be argued, the existing literature has mostly focused on individual and mesolevel variables that promote union participation (Ambrosini et al, 2017; Fiorito et al, 2014; Guillaume and Pochic, 2011; Hu et al, 2018; Kirsch and Blaschke, 2014; Kirton and Healy, 2004; McKay et al, 2020; McPhee et al, 2014), paying little attention to the broader national institutional aspects that shape this process. Drawing on the concept of “union career” and a case study of three union leader generations conducted in Chile, this article aims to fill this gap in the literature.…”