A predictive study of voting behavior in a representation election using union instrumentality and work perceptions

ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIORAND HUMAN PERFORMANCE27, 103--118 (1981)

A Predictive Study of Voting Behavior in a Representation Election Using Union Instrumentality and Work Perceptions THOMAS A . DECOTIIS AND J E A N - Y V E S L E L O U A R N

New York State School of lndustrial and Labor Relations, Cornell University A literature-based model of the unionization process is presented. The process is defined in terms of instrumentality perceptions, behavioral intent, and actual behavior components. The primary determinant of the process is shown to be the instrumentality perceptions of the potential members. The model is tested via discriminant analysis and step-wise regression in a sample of hospital nurses. The results suggest the overriding importance of instrumentality perceptions in the determination of voting behavior. In excess of 75% of the votes were accurately predicted from knowledge of the respondent's instrumentality perceptions alone. Several avenues for future research are suggested, including an expanded view of personal characteristics and extension of expectancy theory to employee voting behavior.

Empirical research on the determinants of voting behavior in union representation elections appears to be enjoying a resurgence after two decades of nearly total neglect. Much of the recent research has focused on three major categories of independent variables; namely, the context of work, employee attitudes towards unions, and personal characteristics of the worker (Kochan, 1978). While each category is an intuitively appealing focus for the study of the unionization process, few attempts have been made to organize the variables into a comprehensive model of the process. One purpose of the present paper is to propose such a model.

WORK CONTEXT Contextual variables have most often been operationalized as extrinsic job satisfaction, leadership style of the immediate superior, and employee perceptions of influence over personally valent outcomes such as pay, benefits, and working conditions. In an early study, Stampofis (1958) found that prounion blue-collar workers were more dissatisfied with their pay, j o b security, promotional opportunities, conditions of equipment, plant maintenance, plant safety, and the job itself than were their antiunion peers. In addition, prounion workers typically viewed their immediate supervisor as unfair, playing favorites, and as having insufficient Our thanks to Professors Lee Dyer, Thomas A. Kochan, and Craig E. Schneier for their careful reading of an earlier draft. Send reprint requests to: Dr. Thomas DeCotiis, New York State School of Industrial and Labor Relations, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853. 103 0030-5073/81/010103-16502.00/0 Copyright© 1981by AcademicPress, Inc. All rightsof reproductionin any formreserved.

104

DECOTIIS AND LELOUARN

authority to get things done. Similar findings with respect to extrinsic facets of job satisfaction and the quality of supervision have been reported by Herman (1973). Schriesheim's (1978) study assessed the extent of association between union vote and ten facets of job satisfaction. His ten measures of job satisfaction were equally divided between what he labeled noneconomic (i.e., satisfaction with independence, variety, creativity, achievement, total noneconomic), and economic (i.e., satisfaction with job security, company policy, pay, working conditions, total economic) facets of job satisfaction. He found that prounion vote was negatively related to both total noneconomic satisfaction and total economic satisfaction. While replicating the above findings with respect to job satisfaction, Stagner and Rosen (1965), and later Kochan (1978), point to the typically modest relationship found between union phenomena and the facets of job satisfaction as suggestive of the potential explanatory importance of other variables in the study of unionization. That is, not all workers will initially turn to unions as a means for reducing dissatisfaction. Kochan bases his thesis on the assumptions that (a) perceived influence over work contextual factors is important to workers, and (b) that workers turn to external sources of influence such as a union only as a last resort. UNION ATTITUDES Attitudes toward unions typically have been assessed as a general affect toward unions and, less often, in specific terms such as the instrumentality of a union for obttaining valent outcomes. The latter focus stresses the appealing concept of a union as an extraorganization entity instrumental to the attainment of valent outcomes. Empirical support for this perspective has been provided by Kochan (1978) who reports that of the several independent variables studied, the strongest relationships were found between a measure of union instrumentality and the propensity to unionize (r = .35; 32, p < .01 for blue- and white-collar workers, respectively). In another study, Vaid (1965) identified the major causes for a positive union vote among Indian textile workers as a general prounion mental set and the perception on the part of the workers that the union would be instrumental to the attainment of outcomes such as higher wages, job security, and protection from arbitrary treatment by management. Herman (1973) also found that prounion workers viewed a union as instrumental to the attainment of fair treatment, better wages, hours, and working conditions. PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS Several personal characteristics have been reported in the literature, including sex, age, race, tenure, hours worked, and prior voting behavior

V O T I N G B E H A V I O R IN A R E P R E S E N T A T I O N E L E C T I O N

105

(Getman, Goldberg, & Herman, 1976). Blum and Soiling (1972) studied a group of female Danish white-collar workers and found that of several personal characteristics assessed, only hours worked per week was associated (positive) with union membership. Uphoff and Dunnette (1956) found a negative relationship between age and education, and attitude towards unions. Blinder (1972) found sex, age, occupation, and family size to be associated with union membership; specifically, he indicates that males, older workers, operatives, and members of large families are more likely to be members of unions than are females, craftsmen or laborers, and members of small families. Kochan (1978) found race to be a statistically significant correlate of the propensity to unionize, with nonwhites being twice as disposed to unionize as whites. Getman and his colleagues (1976) found that while age, race, and tenure, were significant correlates of actual vote, none was a significant predictor of actual vote. These same authors reported that having been a member of a union on a prior job or having a member of the immediate family who is a member of a union is not associated with actual vote. However, having voted for the union in a previous election was strongly associated with a positive attitude towards unions (r = .55, p < .01), intent to vote union (r = .50, p < .01), and actual vote (r = .48, p < .01). The above review indicates that many of the variables classified as context, attitudinal, or personal characteristics have been shown to be associated with unionization. While comparisons between studies are difficult, the literature suggests five conclusions. First, empirical studies of union phenomena are of fairly recent interest to social scientists, the first study (Uphoff & Dunnette) being reported in 1956. Second, four variables (attitude, membership, intent, vote) have been most often studied, but with few efforts to differentiate results in terms of the particular variable of interest. Third, the samples studied have ranged widely and include nonunion college students, union members, members of several occupational groups, and workers involved in the organizing process. Fourth, the magnitude and nature of the relationships obtained varies with the choice of the dependent variable, method(s) of analysis, and the sample studied. For example, in correlational studies, extrinsic facets of job satisfaction seem to be most important regardless of the choice of dependent variable, and especially so when the sample is blue-collar workers. However, when the dependent variable is actual vote and the method of analysis is multiple regression, extrinsic job satisfaction appears to be of secondary importance when compared to independent variables such as intent to vote, attitudes towards unions, and instrumentality perceptions of unions. Fifth, regardless of the dependent variable used, most of the variance explained is accounted for by relatively few independent variables; notably, attitudes toward unions and extrinsic job satisfaction.

106

DECOTIIS AND LELOUARN

The essence of the literature is strong support for the dictum of the institutionalists that American labor unions exist in order to represent the economic and work context interests of their constituents and, further, that people join unions in order to increase the likelihood that these interests will be served. Another interesting conclusion is that in terms of the personal characteristics studied to date, there is little support for the contention that there is a "union type" of individual. One possible explanation for the poor showing of personal characteristics lies in the fact they are typically not strongly associated with attitudinal variables, including specific attitudes such as attitudes towards unions, perceptions of instrumentality, and so forth. In addition to these conclusions, the above review suggests three issues that merit further consideration and investigation. The first issue has to do with the choice and identification of, and relationships among the commonly investigated dependent variables. It may be that much of the difficulty of systematically studying union phenomena stems from a lack of attention to the interdependent meaning of the dependent variables commonly studied. The second issue concerns the choice of the appropriate independent variables for the study of each of the dependent variables. The third issue has to do with the relative predictive power and explanatory value of the possible independent variables for the dependent variable of choice. It seems probable, for example, that there are meaningful causal relationships among the dependent variables commonly studied and that a given independent variable has different predictive implications for each of the dependent variables.

DEPENDENT VARIABLES Four dependent variables dominate prior empirical research on union phenomena: attitude towards unions (Stampolis, 1958; Uphoff & Dunnette, 1956; Alutto & Belasco, 1975), voting intent (Getman et al., 1976; Kochan, 1978), voting behavior (Getman et al., 1976; Schriesheim, 1978), and union membership (Kornhouser, 1961; Vaid, 1965; Blinder, 1972; Blum & Soiling, 1972). A conceptually meaningful way to combine these variables is to view them as four distinguishable phases of a causal process that we have labeled unionization. Our concept of the process is shown in Fig. 1. The model indicates that if a worker's attitude towards unions is positive, he or she will express an intent to vote for a union, and actually vote to unionize if given the opportunity to do so. This initial prounion vote will, in turn, reinforce the individual's attitude towards unions and, hence, when the opportunity is repeated, so will be his or her intent and behavior. 1 Similarly, the obverse is likely in circumstances where the 1 At the individual level, union m e m b e r s h i p is o f no particular interest b e c a u s e an individual's vote in a representation election does not determine m e m b e r s h i p per se. Rather,

VOTING BEHAVIOR IN A REPRESENTATION ELECTION

107

Attitude Towards

Union Member-

Intent to

Behavior

FIG. I. Model of the unionization process.

individual's attitude towards unions is negative, unless the circumstances (e.g., working conditions) that caused the development of the initial attitude change for the worse. While the theoretical linkages shown in Fig. 1 are consistent with the empirical literature, it seems reasonable to bound the process with a time dimension. Specifically, given the transient nature of affective responses, it seems probable that the closer in time a behavioral event is to its attitudinal referent, the more likely there is to be consistency between attitude, intent, and behavior. In essence, a positive union attitude is a necessary but not sufficient condition for prounion voting behavior. The necessary and sufficient conditions are seen to be positive intent and, of course, the opportunity and freedom (actual or psychological)to vote solely on the basis of intent. An important implication of our concept of the unionization process is that the accuracy of the prediction of voting behavior should be better with intent data than with attitudinal data alone since an expressed intent to behave is a closer approximation of actual behavior than is its attitudinal referent. In addition, expressed intent carried with it the implications of a voiced commitment. To the extent that this proposition holds true, it has direct implications for the choice of the dependent variable in any given study. If, for example, interest is primarily in gaining an understanding of the process of how individuals become prounion or evaluating the effects of representation campaigns, then the logical dependent variable of choice is attitude towards union. If, however, interest centers on predicting actual vote, the choice should be voting intent. membership is a function of a majority of the groups members' voting behavior. In addition, the act of joining a union should be distinguished from voting behavior. The former does not necessarily imply positive affect, free intent, or vote, but may simply follow from factors such as closed shop legislation, and so forth. In contrast voting intent is meant to imply the exercise of choice and the operationalization of beliefs.

108

DECOTIIS AND LELOUARN

INDEPENDENT VARIABLES

While extrinsic facets of job satisfaction have typically been shown to be the most useful predictors of the unionization process, the feeling persists that other potentially powerful predictors have not been adequately considered. For example, variables such as felt influence, equity perceptions, and leadership style have, with few exceptions (Kochan, 1978; Stampolis, 1958), received little in the way of theoretical or empirical attention. The simplistic assumption is, of course, that dissatisfied workers join unions. This lack of theoretical attention is particularly troublesome in light of the possibility that variables such as perceived union instrumentality (Vaid, 1965) may be the fulcrum of the unionization process. An instrumentality concept of the unionization process suggests that an individual behaves in ways, including voting behavior, that he or she perceives to be instrumental to the attainment of personally valent outcomes. This concept marks instrumentality perceptions as the explicit source of the belief component of an individual' s attitude toward unions and, therefore, as the catalyst for voting behavior. Specifically, if we define an attitude as "[a] relatively enduring system of evaluative, affective r e a c t i o n s . . , reflecti n g . . , b e l i e f s . . , about the characteristics [including instrumentality] of [an] object or class o f . . . objects" (Shaw & Wright, 1967, p. 3), then it is logically appealing to view instrumentality perceptions of unions as the basis for an individual's attitude towards unions. If so, then the issue is not simply one of relating variables such as extrinsic job satisfaction to the unionization process, but of assessing their effect on instrumentality perceptions. The literature reviewed above is a rich source of possible inputs to this issue and suggests two broad categories of determinants; namely, work context and personal characteristics. Figure 2 is a graphic representation of the empirical literature, the above discussion, and the resulting insights cast in terms of the model of the unionization process shown in Fig. 1. As can be seen from Fig. 2, the unionization process is viewed as solely determined by union instrumentality perceptions. Instrumentality perceptions are, in turn, determined by work context variables and personal characteristics. Work context is a complex concept consisting of four major sets of variables: reactions to work; organizational climate; perceived organizational structure; and immediate supervision. Reactions to work are defined in terms of extrinsic facets of j o b satisfaction, job-related psychological stress, perceived influence over work-related outcomes, and role conflict and ambiguity (Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, Snoek, & Rosenthai, 1964; Rizzo, House, & Lirtzman, 1970). While job-related psychological stress and organizational climate have not been included in prior

V O T I N G B E H A V I O R IN A R E P R E S E N T A T I O N E L E C T I O N

]

Persona] [Characteristics,~

~

109

~nioni~a~ion Proces~ ~

FIG. 2. A model of the determinants of the unionization process.

models of the unionization process, a strong argument for their inclusion can be made. The basis of job-related psychological stress is the context of work; e.g., felt pressure to produce inequitable demands of the work place, and so on (Cummings & DeCotiis, 1973). When the stress is at a level where the employee feels the need for relief, cannot find it within the existing organizational sources, he or she may turn to union representation as instrumental to the attainment of relief. The rationale for including climate variables in the model is that there is a linkage between employee climate perceptions and behavior in that such perceptions serve as cues to what is acceptable or unacceptable behavior within the organization (Schneider, 1975). As a corollary to this effect, it may also be that climate perceptions serve to cue the employee with respect to the nature and content of organizational responses he or she can expect to felt needs and interests. Supervision is defined as the style of leadership and closeness of supervision by the immediate supervisor, and the nature of communications between the employee and the immediate supervisor. Among the personal characteristics supported by prior research are age (Alutto & Belasco, 1974), education (Uphoff & Dunnette, 1956), race (Kochan, 1978), hours worked (Blum & S011ing, 1972), and prior voting behavior (Getman et al., 1976). The primary purpose of the present study was to assess the linkages between the unionization process discussed above and instrumentality perceptions. A secondary purpose was to test some of the linkages between the specified work contextual variables and personal characteristics, and instrumentality perceptions. METHODS

Sample Participants in the study were 95 registered nurses employed by a private hospital in the Northeast. Forty of the nurses had voted prounion and

110

DECOTIIS AND LELOUARN

55 antiunion in a representation election. This split between pro- and antiunion votes approximates almost exactly the results of the representation election. The sample is 56% of the total number of registered nurses working in the hospital and eligible to vote in the representation election. All of the participants were female, predominantly white (over 97%), and had an average age of 32 years, 15.5 years of formal education, and tenure of 4.67 years. Measures

The data were gathered on a voluntary basis through a survey questionnaire and interviews administered in person during normal working hours, and across the four shifts which make up the work day of the hospital. Several variables were measured, with the following variables proving to be of interest in the context of the present study: organizational commitment, psychological stress, centralization, role conflict, role ambiguity, organizational climate (i.e., autonomy, pressure, fairness, recognition, support), leadership style of immediate supervisor, communications, perceived influence, job satisfaction, age, education, union instrumentality perceptions, intent to vote, and actual vote. Perceived influence was measured by a five item scale which assessed the extent to which the employee felt that she had an effect on the allocation of organizationally mediated outcomes such as pay, benefits, working conditions, fair play, and so forth. Union instrumentality was measured by an eight item scale which assessed employee perceptions of the extent to which the presence of a union would result in better pay, benefits, working conditions, supervision, and fair treatment. Intent to vote was a dichotomous variable which asked the employee to respond to the following item: " I f a union election were held tomorrow, I'd vote for (against) the union." Actual vote was assessed subsequent to the questionnaire on a voluntary basis from each employee. Only the questionnaire of the employees who later volunteered their actual vote were included in the study, z RESU LTS Table 1 presents the zero-order coefficients of correlation among the variables plus coefficient alpha for each variable measured as a scale. As can be seen in Table 1, several interesting results were obtained. The single largest correlate of both voting intent and actual vote (i.e., 1 = yes; 2 = no) is union instrumentality (r = .76 and -.67, respectively). The magnitude of the former relationship provides indirect support for our concept of instrumentality perceptions as the basis of union attitudes. The 2 The scales used in the present study are available from the senior author.

-

Commitment Psychological stress Centralization Role conflict Role ambiguity Leadership style Communications Influence Autonomy Pressure Support Recognition Fairness Job satisfaction ~ Age Education U n i o n Instrumentality Intent a Vote r

.97

.73 .82 .60 .74 .83 .90 .74 .70 .83 .77 .82 .80 .76

-42 -37 21

-14

-48 c -33 -35 15 42 53 50 47 -34 43 36 45 53 53 43 60 -21 -45 -46 -32 -29 48 -50 -26 -35 -43 -39 04 53 37 -24

2

36 -12 -39 -40 -52 -41 32 -50 -28 -52 -41 -32 13 42 35 -21

3

-29 -48 -58 -42 -30 39 -56 -29 -40 -46 -36 11 40 21 -21

4

25 29 15 06 -14 09 12 -02 27 16 -31 -06 01 14

5

62 49 38 -32 64 41 44 52 29 -05 -25 -20 08

6

59 36 -26 52 32 48 61 30 -05 -31 -21 15

7

-39 -24 28

-14

48 -32 50 40 57 61 30

8

-28 48 33 48 47 42 07 -36 -26 14

9

33 13 -11

-01

-44 -16 -23 -34 -41

10

12

51 64 42 65 57 47 22 02 - 0 7 -59 -26 -44 -25 31 13

11

54 38 -01 -51 -38 33

13

37 09 -55 -40 38

14

-18 -39 -29 14

15

-03 02 01

16

76 -67

17

-47

18

Decimals omitted. b Job satisfaction is an index o f the following extrinsic aspects: pay, p a y increase, c a r e e r opportunity, job security, p a y equity, benefits, a n d conditions of work. c M i n i m u m r w h e n n = 9 5 : p <~ .05 = +_.15;p ~< .01 = +_.21. a Two equals intend to vote union; 1 equals intent to vote nonunion. O n e represents the prounion voters a n d 2 t h e antiunion voters.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19.

1

TABLE 1 ZERO-ORDER COEFFICIENTS AMONG THE VARIABLES AND COEFFICIENT A L P H A FOR EACH VARIABLE MEASURED AS A SCALE a

112

DECOTIIS AND LELOUARN

next strongest correlate of intent and actual vote is an index of extrinsic job satisfaction (r = - . 4 0 and .38, respectively). In addition, the relationship between instrumentality and extrinsic job satisfaction is strong and in the expected direction (r = -.55), perhaps suggesting that dissatisfaction does indeed initiate a search for alternative sources of influence (Kochan, 1978). Additional support for this interpretation can be found in the triangle formed by the correlations among instrumentality, felt influence, and extrinsic job satisfaction. Specifically, as felt influence increases so does satisfaction with the extrinsic facets of work, but as felt influence decreases the perception of union instrumentality as a source of serving employee needs and interest increases. For some variables, significant differences (two tailed t test) were found between the prounion and antiunion voters. The prounion group was less committed to the organization (p < .05), reported more job-related psychological stress (p < .01), viewed the organization as more centralized (p < .05), and experienced more conflict in their jobs than did the antiunion group (p < .05). In addition, the prounion group saw themselves as having less influence over valent outcomes (p < .01), being less supported by their immediate supervisor (p < .01), and being treated unfairly relative to their antiunion counterparts (p < .01). In light of these differences, it is not surprising that they also reported less extrinsic job satisfaction (p < .01) and expressed a strong intention to vote for the union (p < .01). Interestingly, union instrumentality perceptions, intent to vote, and extrinsic job satisfaction constituted the strongest differences between the two groups. Predicting actual vote. In order to improve our understanding of the ultimate criterion, voting behavior, a two-group step-wise discriminant analysis of actual vote was computed. Since discriminant analysis is a special case of multiple regression, the results are interpretable in much the same way as regression results would be. Specifically, the discriminant weights and coefficient of canonical correlation are comparable to beta weights and the coefficient of determination, respectively, in multiple regression analysis. Table 2 reports the results of the discriminant analysis. Table 2 shows that of the predictors tested, four made signifi,cant contributions to the prediction of actual vote: (1) union instrumentality; (2) job-related psychological stress; (3) role ambiguity; and (4) age. As indicated by the coefficient of canonical correlation shown in Table 3, the four variables together account for 46% of the criterion variance. In addition, the Chi-square test of the discriminant function is significant (p < .001). Perhaps most important, the absolute magnitude of the coefficients viewed in the context of the F ratio required to enter-remove them from the discriminant function indicates that union instrumentality has an

113

V O T I N G B E H A V I O R IN A R E P R E S E N T A T I O N E L E C T I O N TABLE 2 STEPWISE DISCRIMINANT ANALYSIS FOR PREDICTING ACTUAL VOTE (n = 95)

1. 2. 3. 4.

Union instrumentality Psychological stress Role ambiguity Age

Standardized discriminant coefficients

F to enter or remove

Rao' s V

Significance of change

- 1.131 .357 .259 - .191

55.47 7.29 4.19 2.28

55.47 67.24 74.60 78.85

.000 .001 .007 .039

Eigenvalue: .848. Canonical correlation: p = .69; p2 = .46. X2 = 55.88, d f = 4, p <~ .001.

overwhelming effect on the discriminant function. Within the constraints imposed by discriminant analysis, the relative importance of union instrumentality was assessed by repeating the analysis using union instrumentality as the only predictor variable. The result of this analysis was that 44.4% of the variance in actual vote was explained by union instrumentality, with the remaining three predictors adding only 1.6% to explained criterion variance. Another indication of the importance of union instrumentality perceptions to voting behavior is suggested by the analysis of predicted group membership. Eighty-two percent (78/95) of the voters were correctly classified using the four-variable discriminant functions reported in Table 2. However, when the same analysis was repeated using union instrumentality as the single basis of classification, the accuracy of predictions dropped only six points to 76% correctly classified voters. Considered together, Table 2 and the results of predicting group membership suggest a few interesting conclusions in view of the fact that extrinsic job satisfaction, felt influence, and voting intent did not enter the discriminant function of actual voting behavior. First, the results partially support the model shown in Fig. 2, in that union instrumentality perceptions were by far the most important determinant of voting behavior. This outcome suggests a rational approach to voting wherein the individual estimates the extent to which the union will effectively serve as his or her agent and votes accordingly. In addition, the strong association between instrumentality and intent (r = .76) suggest that instrumentality perceptions may indeed be an important source of voting intent. In view of the prior findings reviewed above, the variables which did not enter the discriminant function are as much of interest as are the variables which did. As shown in Fig. 2, with the exception of voting intent (which is shown to be dependent on instrumentality), it may be that

114

DECOTIIS AND LELOUARN

the effects ofjob satisfaction, leadership style, felt influence, fairness, and communications on voting behavior are through their effects on instrumentality perceptions. If so, then the results would argue strongly for the inclusion of instrumentality perceptions in future research and theory. In order to test the veracity of this conclusion and consequent explanation, the determinants of union instrumentality were identified through a multiple step-wise regression of instrumentality perceptions on the independent variables shown in Table 1. The results of this analysis are shown in Table 3. As the entries in Table 3 indicate, 54.5% of the variance in union instrumentality is explained by the variables included in the study. Moreover, of the total explained variance in union instrumentality, 90% is explained by four variables: extrinsic job satisfaction, job-related psychological stress, communications, and fairness. While the results of this analysis support prior findings with respect to extrinsic job satisfaction, they do not support the importance attributed to perceived influence and perceptions of the immediate supervisor. One possible explanation for the digression from prior results is that the variance attributable to the TABLE 3 STEP-WISE MULTIPLE REGRESSION OF INSTRUMENTALITY PERCEPTIONS ON WORK ENVIRONMENT, ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE, STRUCTURE, SUPERVISION, AND PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS

Independent variable Work 1. 2. 3.

environment Extrinsic job satisfaction Psychological stress Influence

Beta weight

R2

-.448"* .408** .014

.313 .436 .436

.313'* .123"* .000

.091 -.076 -.320* .139 -.196

.441 .444 .464 .474 .503

.005 .003 .020 .010 .029*

-.036

.504

.001

.515 .544

.011 .029*

.545

.001 ---

Rz

change

Organizational climate 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Autonomy Pressure Support Recognition Fairness

Structure 9. Role ambiguity Supervision 10. Leadership style 11. C o m m u n i c a t i o n s

.186 .244*

Individual 12. C o m m i t m e n t 13. Age 14. E d u c a t i o n * p < .05. ** p < .01.

-.024 -.019 .021

V O T I N G B E H A V I O R IN A R E P R E S E N T A T I O N E L E C T I O N

115

latter two variables are accounted for by fairness. From Table 1 it can be seen that the zero-order coefficients of correlation between fairness and influence and supervision are high (r = .57; 52, respectively) giving some support to this interpretation. It may be that an individual perceives a union as instrumental to need satisfaction to the extent that he or she is not satisfied with organizational sources of outcomes (extrinsic satisfaction), feels stress as a consequence of the job, is not kept informed, and feels unfairly treated. Furthermore, the absence of personal characteristics as significant independent variables suggest that it is the work situation rather than the characteristics of the individual that serve as the main impetus to unionization.

DISCUSSION A model of the unionization process and its determinants has been presented and partially tested in a hospital setting. Many of the results obtained are consistent with both the literature and the model. Other results, however, do not replicate the prior findings nor appear to support the model presented in Fig. 2. For example, extrinsic job satisfaction was found to be a significant correlate of both voting intent and actual vote, but not to be predictive of either intent or actual vote. Our interpretation of these results is that while job disatisfaction initiates a search for alternative instrumentalities for reducing dissatisfaction, it does not necessarily result in the choice of a union as the vehicle of change. Rather, a rational model of behavior assumes that the search will initially be internal among existing instrumentalities and then external only to the extent that the internal search is fruitless. Also consistent with prior findings, personal characteristics proved not to be of practical significance as either correlates or predictors of the unionization process. Another finding is that several variables not previously reported in the literature were found to be associated and/or predictive of the unionization process. Notable among the correlates are job-related psychological stress, centralization, role conflict, and several dimensions of organizational climate such as autonomy, support, recognition, and fairness. While the findings with respect to these variables are unique to the present study, they are by no means surprising. That is, if a union is viewed as an external source of control over an organization, including its structure and processes, it seems reasonable that an individual who is negatively positioned on these variables may indeed respond positively to the unionization process as instrumental to a change in his or her position. As determinants of actual vote, instrumentality perceptions, job-related psychological stress, role ambiguity, and age were found to be most useful. However, voting intent proved not to be predictive of actual vote. At

116

DECOTIIS AND LELOUARN

first glance, this outcome would appear not to support the model, especially since the partial correlation between instrumentality and actual vote (controlling for intent) is zero. However, upon closer examination the logic of causal analysis and interpretation suggest just the opposite. If, as is shown in Fig. 2, intent is treated as an intervening variable in that instrumentality causes intent which in turn causes actual vote, there should be no relationship between instrumentality and actual vote except in the presence of intent. In short, it is logically inconsistent to hold intent constant while varying instrumentality. This is especially so under the conditions of the present concept where intent has been viewed as a temporal and opportunistic extension of instrumentality perceptions. This interpretation of the results seems most plausible given the bivariate relationship among instrumentality, intent, and actual vote shown in Table 1. Approximately one half of the variance in actual vote and instrumentality perceptions, respectively, were accounted for by the variable included in the present study. While well within the bounds of good prediction, the amount of variance unexplained in both actual vote and instrumentality perceptions suggest considerable room for improvement and several avenues for future research. The concept of union instrumentality itself merits further investigation. In the present study instrumentality was operationalized as a scale which focused exclusively on work contextual outcomes such as pay, benefits, working conditions, security, and fair treatment. It may be, however, that this view of instrumentality is deficient. That is for some occupational groups more intrinsically oriented outcomes such as control over the content of work, participation in decision-making, and so forth may be important. These outcomes, for example, may be especially important under conditions of change such as in job redesign. Another interesting question has to do with the relationship between extrinsic job satisfaction and union instrumentality. To wit: Under the assumption that dissatisfaction does not per se lead to unions being more instrumental, but only to the perceptions of increased instrumentality; the question is why the change in perception. One explanation offered here and elsewhere (Kochan, 1978) is that a union is the choice of last resort after internal means of influence have been exhausted. This interpretaton clearly suggests the possible importance of the concept of frustration as a key to changes in the perception of union instrumentality. Although not the subject of the present study, change in felt frustration may also help explain the success/failure of union organizing campaigns. There may also be other major categories of variables not included in the present model which affect the unionization process. Variables which come readily to mind include state of the economy, perceptions of management policies and behavior, union and/or management behavior during

V O T I N G B E H A V I O R IN A R E P R E S E N T A T I O N E L E C T I O N

117

the organizing campaign, and the industry to which the organization belongs. In addition, a logical extension of the instrumentality concept of the unionization process is the inclusion of the concept of union expectancy; that is, " I f I vote for the union, will they win the election?" It may be, for example, that expectancy perceptions are particularly important when more than one union is competing to represent an employee group. With respect to the union itself, future studies should include an assessment of union attributes such as perceptions of union leadership (e.g., corrupt vs honest) and the persuasiveness of the union campaign. The poor results obtained for personal characteristics either supports our initial conclusion (i.e., that there is no union " t y p e " of person) or the sense that the right personal characteristics simply have not been included in prior or the present research. The search for such characteristics constitutes a legitimate research interest within the larger context of understanding why individuals join organizations in general and the uniquely interesting question of why they join unions in particular. For example, without speaking to the measurement problems inherent in personality assessment, it may be that certain personality variables are important determinants of instrumentality perceptions. Two that readily come to mind are Murray's (Hall & Lindzey, 1967) nAffiliation and nSuccorance dimensions of personality. With respect to affiliation, our reasoning is as follows: the essence of this need is voluntary cooperation or reciprocity with an allied other who resembles the individual in some meaningful way. If we allow that a source of such similarity is work and the organization in which that work occurs, then an individual who is characterized by high nAttiliation would be likely to respond positively to the unionization process. This response is highly probable if the individual perceives a union to be instrumental to the attainment of organizationally mediated outcomes such as a sense of belonging or solidarity. As the label implies, the need for succorance has to do with having one's needs gratified by the sympathetic aid of a protective ally and supporter. An individual who is high on this need seeks out sources of protection and gratification. To the extent that the individual views a union as instrumental to meeting these needs, he or she would be expected to hold positive attitudes toward unions, be predisposed to vote prounion, and actually vote prounion if provided the opportunity. While not arguing for the inclusion of particular personal characteristics in future research, the point remains that a comprehensive theory of unionization must necessarily pay more than lip-service to the effects of personal characteristics on individual behavior. Another fruitful source of future research is suggested by the shortcomings of the present study wherein potentially powerful predictors such as prior voting behavior (Getman et al., 1976) and perception of union power

118

DECOTIIS AND LELOUARN

were not assessed. While these and other shortcomings of the present study do not warrant a revision of the model presented, they clearly indicate the need for an expanded theory of the unionization process. REFERENCES Alutto, J. A., & Belasco, J. A. Determinants of attitudinal militancy among nurses and teachers. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 1974, 27, 216-227. Blinder, A . S . Who join unions? Working Paper No. 36, Industrial Relations Section, Princeton University, February 1972. Blum, A. A., & S011ing, L. Who belongs to unions in Denmark? Industrial Relations Journal, 1972, 3, 49-59. Cummings, L. L., & DeCotiis, T . A . Organizational correlates of perceived stress in a professional organization. Public Personnel Management, 1973, 2, 275-282. Getman, J. G., Goldberg, S. B., & Herman, J. B. Union representation elections: Law and reality. New York: Russel Sage Foundation, 1976. Hall, C. S., & Lindzey, G. Theories of personality. New York: Wiley, 1967. Hamner, W. C., & Smith, F. J. Work attitudes as predictors of unionization activity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1978, 63, 415-421. Herman, J. B. Are situational contingencies limiting job attitude--Job performance relationships?, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1973, 10, 208-224. Kahn, R. L., Wolfe, D. M., Quinn, R. P., Snoek, J. D., & Rosenthal, R. A. Organizational stress: studies in role conflict and ambiguity. New York: Wiley, 1964. Kochan, T. A. Contemporary views of American workers towards trade unions. Research Report to the U.S. DePartment of Labor, Washington, D.C., September 1978. Koruhauser, R. Some social determinants and consequences of union membership. Labor History, 1961, 2, 30-61. Locke, E . A . The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In Marvin D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology. Chicago: Rand McNally College, 1976. Pp. 1297-1349. Rizzo, J. R., House, R. J., & Lirtzman, S. I. Role conflict and ambiguity in complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1970, 15, 66-77. Schneider, B. Organizational climate: An essay. Personnel Psychology, 1975, 28, 447-479. Schriesheim, C. A. Job satisfaction, attitude toward unions, and voting in a union representation election. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1978, 63, 5, 548-552. Shaw, M. E., & Wright, J. M. Scales for the measurement of attitudes. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967. Stagner, R., & Rosen, H. Psychology of union-management relations. BeLmont, Calif.: Wadsworth, 1965. Stampolis, A. Employees' attitudes toward unionization, management and factory conditions: A survey case study, Research Report no. 7, Bureau of Business and Economic Research, School of Business Administration, Georgia State College of Business Administration, Atlanta, August 1958. Uphoff, W. H., & Dunnette, M . D . Understanding the union member, Bulletin no. 18, Industrial Relations Center, University of Minnesota, July 1956. Vaid, K . N . Why workers join unions. Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 1965, 1, 208-230. Vroom, V. H. Work and motivation, New York: Wiley, 1964. RECEIVED" February 21, 1980.