Union membership behavior: The influence of instrumental and value-based commitment.

Abstract

wedish unionism has many unique characteristics (Kjellberg, 1989), S among them the high union density rate (around 84%), and the organization in just a few large unions in three national federations, one for blue-collar workers, one for white-collar workers, and one for professionals. Despite these specific attributes, there are important similarities between Sweden and most industrialized countries. Today, most unions, like Swedish unions, find themselves in a rapidly changing environment and are facing new challenges to the traditional ways of internal organization and task performance. The increase in alternative work arrangements (e.g., part-time employment), new information technology, globalization, and new management strategies to strengthen employees' commitment to the company (e.g., individual contracts) are all examples of factors that unions are confronting. One of the primary motives for the new managerialism is the recognition that the old control systems fail to develop the degree of employee involvement required in order to maximize efficiency in an increasingly competitive environment. The basis for organization is gradually shifting toward flexible specialization, market orientation, jobintegrated structure, and coordinated independence of small semiautonomous groups (Brulin

Commitment to the union: a survey of research and the implications for industrial relations and trade unions

“…Heshizer and Lund (1997) find that members with high levels of value-based commitment were more willing to participate in those types of union activities which involve personal sacrifice and time than were those whose commitment was mainly instrumental. Sverke and Sjoberg (1995) find that the four groups differ in terms of their intention to participate in union activities, with value-based commitment being associated with higher levels of participation and intention to remain in membership.…”

“…Kelloway and Barling 1993;Sverke and Kuruvilla 1995), but in line with the wider research on the theory of reasoned action, it is more appropriate to measure actual behaviour in a subsequent time period to the attitudinal variables which are hypothesized to predict it (e.g. Sverke and Sjoberg 1995). 7 The findings of these studies provide considerable support for the theory of reasoned action.…”

“…For example, Sverke and Sjoberg (1995) find that instrumental union commitment is related to the intention to remain a member but not to the intention to participate actively in the union, while affective commitment is related to both. Newton and Shore (1992) propose a model of union attachment based on an ideological or values-based commitment on the one hand and instrumental commitment on the other, with commitment ranging from positive to negative attitudes on each.…”

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

“…There is a great deal of evidence to suggest that organisational commitment is associated with lower levels of intent to quit and with higher levels of discretionary or citizenship behaviour (Mathieu and Zajac, ; Meyer et al, ). Similarly, union commitment has been shown to predict active participation in the union (Bamberger et al, ), and intent to quit the union (Sverke and Sjoberg, ; Snape and Chan, ; Goslinga and Sverke, ).…”

“…There is a great deal of evidence to suggest that organisational commitment is associated with lower levels of intent to quit and with higher levels of discretionary or citizenship behaviour (Mathieu and Zajac, 1990;Meyer et al, 2002). Similarly, union commitment has been shown to predict active participation in the union (Bamberger et al, 1999), and intent to quit the union (Sverke and Sjoberg, 1995;Snape and Chan, 2000;Goslinga and Sverke, 2003). One possible rationale for such relationships is that the individual employee/member enjoys a social exchange relationship with both employer and union, which is reflected in commitment and reciprocated in the form of discretionary citizenship behaviour and intent to continue the relationship (Organ, 1990).…”