See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/323701817

The Role of Management and Trade Union Leadership on Dual Commitment:

The Mediating Effect of the Workplace Relations Climate

Article  in  Human Resource Management Journal · March 2018

DOI: 10.1111/1748-8583.12191

CITATIONS READS

0 630

3 authors:

Chloé Fortin-Bergeron Doucet Olivier

Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières HEC Montréal - École des Hautes Études commerciales
6 PUBLICATIONS   6 CITATIONS    25 PUBLICATIONS   163 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Marc Antonin Hennebert

HEC Montréal - École des Hautes Études commerciales
38 PUBLICATIONS   73 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Doucet Olivier on 21 September 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Received: 19 January 2017 Revised: 24 January 2018 Accepted: 29 January 2018
DOI: 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‐Bergeron1 | Olivier Doucet2 | Marc‐Antonin Hennebert2

1
Cardiff Business School, Cardiff University
2
Abstract
Department of Human Resources
Management, HEC Montréal This article examines the effect of transformational and laisser‐faire
Correspondence leadership on the part of local union leaders and immediate supervi-
Chloe Fortin‐Bergeron, Postdoctoral sors on the dual commitment of unionised workers. Building on the
Researcher, Cardiff Business School, Cardiff social information processing perspective, it is suggested that these
University, Colum Drive, Cardiff CF10 3EU,
UK.
leadership styles are linked to commitment through the workplace
Email: chloe.fortin‐[email protected] relations climate (WRC). Based on a sample of 834 unionised
Funding information workers, our results suggest that WRC represents an important
Social Sciences and Humanities Research mechanism explaining the effect of the immediate supervisor's lead-
Council of Canada, Grant/Award Number:
ership in unionised settings. Results also show that transformational
430‐2014‐00064; HEC Montreal (internship
grant) 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, dual commitment, immediate supervisor, leadership,

union representative, workplace relations climate

1 | I N T RO DU CT I O N

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).

462 © 2018 John Wiley & Sons Ltd wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/hrmj Hum Resour Manag J. 2018;28:462–478.
FORTIN‐BERGERON ET AL. 463

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 behaviours asso-
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,
464 FORTIN‐BERGERON ET AL.

union, and employees (Danford, Richardson, Stewart, Tailby, & Upchurch, 2004; Morris, Kleiner, & Pilarski, 2002).
Moreover, Canada, as a liberal market political economy (Soskice & Hall, 2001), is characterised by a highly
decentralised industrial relations regime (collective bargaining at the firm level), giving local actors an important role
in the establishment of union–management relations.
In the following sections, we present the previous literature and the hypothesis. We then report our
methodology. Finally, we present and discuss the main results and their implications for theory and practice.

2 | LITERATURE AND HYPOTHESIS

2.1 | The role of leadership in the WRC

As one facet of the prevailing climate in an organisation, the WRC has been defined more broadly as the union–
management “norms, conducts, practices and atmosphere in an organization” (…) “as perceived by the organizational
members” (Dastmalchian, 2008: 548). Part of the WRC research (e.g., Pyman et al., 2010; Valizade et al., 2016) has
been developed in response to a growing interest for union–management collaboration and bipartisan arrangements
such as “quality of work life programs, gain‐sharing plans and union‐management committees [which] have become
an established feature of labor relations in many organizations” (Deery & Iverson, 2005: 588). Such studies have
brought out the importance, for union and management actors, of displaying appropriate skills and leadership
behaviours (Harrisson, Roy, & Haines, 2011; Kochan et al., 2008). More specifically, they have recognised that a
positive WRC requires, from both union and management representatives, particular behaviours and skills in terms
of communication, problem solving, and conflict resolution in their interactions with members and other local actors.
Although a number of studies have looked at the influence of local union representatives' leadership on members'
attitudes (e.g., Fullagar, Clark, Gallagher, & Gordon, 1994; Greene, Black, & Ackers, 2000; Metochi, 2002), this litera-
ture remains largely undeveloped compared with the study of first‐line managers' leadership behaviours. Over the
years, different leadership behaviours (e.g., participative leadership, service‐oriented leadership) have been examined,
but the small effect size found in these studies have led authors to call for a more comprehensive measure of local
union representatives' leadership (Plimmer & Blumenfeld, 2012; Sadler, 2012). In this regard, some studies have relied
on the transformational leadership theory and have generally found a positive and significative relationship between
these behaviours and members' union commitment and participation (Cregan et al., 2009; Fortin‐Bergeron et al.,
2013; Kelloway & Barling, 1993; Twigg et al., 2007). However, more empirical work is needed, not only to validate
the adequacy of transformational behaviours on the part of local union representatives, but also to understand how
they can lead to commitment among unionised workers (Cregan et al., 2009; Gall & Fiorito, 2012), while taking into
account these same behaviours on the part of first‐line managers.
Transformational leadership is composed of four behavioural components. The idealised influence component refers
to a leader who acts as a role model and earns workers' respect and admiration (Bass & Riggio, 2006). Leaders who show
inspirational motivation behaviours are considered to help workers develop a keen sense of collectivity and espouse the
group's mission and values (Avolio, Bass, & Jung, 1999). Furthermore, leaders who display this type of leadership pay par-
ticular attention to members' needs (individual consideration component), while endeavouring to ensure that members
are committed and invest in the group (intellectual stimulation component) (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, & Fetter,
1990). Laisser‐faire leadership, for its part, refers to leaders who consciously provide few instructions and little support to
workers, delay their response to requests, and wait for conflicts to solve themselves (Avolio et al., 1999).1

2.2 | Transformational leadership and the WRC

In this study, we argue that management and union representatives who show transformational leadership will foster
a positive perception of the WRC among workers. Through their daily interactions with transformational local leaders
who communicate a positive vision (inspirational motivation behaviours), workers will interpret their work
FORTIN‐BERGERON ET AL. 465

environment in a more collaborative manner (Shih, Chiang, & Chen, 2012), being provided with clear information on
the norms and organisational practices that are fostered within their organisation (González‐Romá, Peiró, & Tordera,
2002). Transformational leaders, through the idealised influence behaviours, are also likely to foster a favourable per-
ception of the WRC by transmitting and communicating important values to workers. In this regard, studies have
shown that union and management representatives who maintain open communication and share information with
workers can lead workers to perceive and adhere to a more collaborative workplace relations (Balser & Winkler,
2012; Deery & Iverson, 2005). Such leaders can also foster creativity and innovation in problem solving. For instance,
in a context where relationships between management, the union, and employees are less collaborative, intellectual
stimulation behaviours can lead organisational members to see the situation in a more positive light, helping them
to overcome disagreements and propose effective solutions (Doucet, Poitras, & Chênevert, 2009; Rahim, 2010). Such
behaviours can thus modify the perception of the work environment, emphasising common interests and mutual
respect between the parties, and in this way, facilitate a positive WRC (Harrisson et al., 2011: Kochan et al., 2008).
Finally, by listening to workers' needs and concerns (individualised consideration behaviours), transformational leaders
not only build a strong relationship with workers based on mutual recognition and trust, but also promote honest and
transparent exchanges, which facilitate collaboration between organisational members (Valizade et al., 2016). We thus
propose the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1. Transformational leadership on the part of (a) union representatives and (b) immediate
supervisors will be positively linked to workers' perception of the workplace relations climate.

2.3 | “Laisser‐faire” leadership and the WRC

Leaders can simultaneously exhibit transformational and laisser‐faire leadership to varying degrees (Doucet, Fredette,
Simard, & Tremblay, 2015), depending on the situation or the group with which they are interacting. This implies that union
and management representatives can display behaviour such as helping workers to develop strong sensitivity to the col-
lective while, at the same time, delaying their response to workers' requests and needs. However, unlike transformational
leadership, different empirical arguments suggest that the laisser‐faire style can be negatively related to the WRC.
Laisser‐faire leaders are generally less present, often avoid making decisions and delay responses to queries
(Avolio et al., 1999). Such behaviours prevent parties from recognising and respecting each other's interests and tend
to aggravate misunderstandings (Avolio et al., 1999). In other words, a union–management relations climate marked
by mutual trust, cooperation, and respect requires, from all local actors, accountability and engagement behaviours
(Kochan et al., 2008), which are opposite to laisser‐faire leadership. Following this line of thought, laisser‐faire
leadership on the part of union and management representatives is likely to convey a less positive perception of
the WRC among workers. This leads us to propose:

Hypothesis 2. Laisser‐faire leadership on the part of (a) union representatives and (b) immediate supervi-
sors will be negatively linked to workers' perception of the workplace relations climate.

2.4 | WRC and dual commitment

The main argument put forward to explain the positive link between WRC and dual commitment is that an individual is
unable to develop an attachment to two conflicting entities given the cognitive dissonance that arises from such a
situation (Angle & Perry, 1986; Magenau et al., 1988; Redman & Snape, 2016). Indeed, because of the discomfort
associated with the presence of discordant cognitions, individuals will try to adjust their attitudes to diminish the
dissonance and re‐establish a cognitive equilibrium (Festinger, 1957). Following this reasoning, a WRC perceived
positively is likely to lead to dual commitment. However, in a context where the WRC is perceived negatively, dual
commitment could become a source of cognitive dissonance for workers, who will feel obliged to choose the target
of their commitment (Magenau et al., 1988). A positive WRC will be more favourable to dual commitment, as workers
466 FORTIN‐BERGERON ET AL.

will perceive a greater convergence of interests between the union and management, and will thus see their attach-
ment to both entities as compatible. In this sense, workers are likely to experience fewer conflicts in their double role
as employees and union members when they perceive the WRC to be collaborative (Deery & Iverson, 2005; Redman
& Snape, 2016). The above theoretical and empirical reflections lead us to propose:

Hypothesis 3. Workers' perception of the workplace relations climate will be positively linked to (a)
organisational and (b) union commitments.

2.5 | The mediating role of the WRC

The social information processing perspective (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978) is of particular relevance in explaining the
mediating role played by the WRC in the relationships between the leadership styles of union and management local
leaders and wokers' commitment. According to this perspective, the social context of work exerts a significant
influence on workers because they adapt their attitudes and behaviours to their understanding of their immediate
informational environment. In unionised setting, workers' perception of the WRC—as an individual cognitive
representation (Parker et al., 2003) of their work environment—can thus lead them to interpret and anticipate work
events and adjust their attitudes accordingly (Takeuchi, Chen, & Lepak, 2009). In this sense, union and management
first‐line representatives, through their daily interactions with workers, can influence workers' commitment toward
their union and organisation by becoming a significant source of information on the nature of the WRC in their
organisation. A number of authors (e.g., Cafferkey & Dundon, 2015; Dastmalchian, 2008; Gordon & Ladd, 1990;
Pyman et al., 2010) have proposed that understanding workers' interpretation of their WRC allows for a better
comprehension of their attitudinal reactions, such as their sense of commitment. This reasoning has led these authors
to consider the WRC as an important intervening variable between institutional and relational factors, such as union
and management leadership, and workers' attitudes and behaviours in unionised settings. By considering union and
management first‐line representatives as part of the workers' immediate informational environment, we suggest that
the influence of these representatives on workers' commitment can be better understood through the representation
that the latter have of the WRC. We thus propose:

Hypothesis 4. Workers' perception of the workplace relations climate will mediate the relationship
between (a) transformational and (b) laisser‐faire leadership on the part of union representatives and union
commitment.

Hypothesis 5. Workers' perception of the workplace relations climate will mediate the relationship
between (a) transformational and (b) laisser‐faire leadership on the part of immediate supervisors and
organisational commitment.

The theoretical model developed in this study is presented in Figure 1 and illustrates the five hypotheses
presented in the above sections.

3 | METHODS

3.1 | Background
This study involved all the unionised workers of a Canadian subsidiary of a multinational firm in the aerospace industry
based in Montreal. In the province of Quebec, the aerospace industry cluster includes more than 230 firms and pro-
vides over 40,000 jobs. The firm at which our research was conducted was at the top of the pyramidal structure of
Montreal's aerospace cluster (Morissette, Barré, Levesque, Solar‐Pelletier, & Silveira Campos Moreira, 2013),
employed over 2,300 workers, and was seen as a leader in terms of management practices and thus a model to follow
by its affiliated subcontractors and suppliers. Therefore, this subsidiary appeared particularly pertinent in terms of
FORTIN‐BERGERON ET AL. 467

FIGURE 1 Theoretical model

envisaging the role of the leadership exerted by representatives in shaping more collaborative workplace relations,
particularly in light of its influence on its value chain and the likelihood that its management practices would be taken
up by its network of suppliers in the Montreal cluster.
The union's presence in this Montreal subsidiary could be traced back to 1963. After experiencing two major
strikes lasting more than 21 months during the 1960s and 1970s, the labour and management parties initiated
significant efforts in the early 1980s to build more collaborative relations, which translated into the development of
both formal structures (joint committees) and informal practices (continuous communications) in this regard. In subse-
quent decades, labour relations in the plant had stabilised and no strike action had been taken. In this regard, it should
be noted that when the data were being collected, a new collective agreement, supported by both the employer and
the union, had just become operational.
The incumbent local union in this subsidiary was affiliated with a major Canadian industrial union representing
thousands of workers across Quebec and Canada. Considering the large number of members, the local union had
acquired a well‐defined structure. More precisely, the executive committee of the local union consisted of a president,
six “plant stewards,” and four members in charge of specific files including health and safety and training. In
accordance with the collective agreement in force, these positions were only open to workers with at least 3 years
seniority, and executive committee members generally had much more seniority than the required minimum. Each
plant steward represented a specific zone within the plant and was supported by four to five “zone stewards.” The
zone stewards were responsible for informing, orienting, and supporting workers with regard to work‐related issues
and facilitating union activities. When problems arose with unionised workers, they acted as representatives vis‐a‐
vis the employer, and more specifically, supervisors or first‐line managers. In total, 45 employees in this subsidiary
held union positions, representing an approximate ratio of 1 union representative per 50 workers. These union
representatives were all elected by the members of the local union for a 3‐year mandate.

3.2 | Sample and procedure

A questionnaire in paper format, accompanied by a letter from the union and another from the researchers guarantee-
ing the anonymity of the respondents and confidentiality of the results, was distributed to each of the 2,300 unionised
468 FORTIN‐BERGERON ET AL.

employees. Respondents could deposit their filled‐out questionnaires into any of the padlocked boxes situated in the
two plants surveyed. A total of 834 questionnaires were returned and deemed to be admissible, for a response rate of
36.3%. The final sample consisted of 95% men and 5% women, having an average seniority of 22 years. The majority
of respondents (77.8%) were between 41 and 60 years of age. These sociodemographic characteristics of the sample
were representative of both the population under study and, more broadly, the business sector involved.

3.3 | Measurements
All the measurement items were evaluated at the individual level using a 7‐point Likert scale (1 = completely disagree to
7 = completely agree). The scales were translated from English to French following Brislin's “back‐translation” method
(Brislin, 1980), which consists in translating the original version into the language in which it is needed and
retranslating the final version back into the original language. This procedure enabled a group of experts to ensure
the quality of the translation by comparing the two final versions.
Three main methods have been used to measure dual commitment in the literature, namely, the taxonomic
approach, the use of a specific scale measurement, and the correlational or dimensional approach (Magenau et al.,
1988; Robinson et al., 2012). In this study, we decided to adopt the correlational approach, which consists in using
separate measures for union commitment and organisational commitment and reporting the correlation between
workers' scores for both scales. This choice was motivated by our desire to analyse relationship patterns at the sample
level, rather than categorising individuals into classifications (taxonomic approach), and by the fact that the reliability
and validity of the measurement scale of dual commitment remain controversial (Robinson et al., 2012). Thus, two
separate measures of commitment were mobilised. Union commitment was measured using five items from Kelloway,
Catano, and Southwell's (1992) measure of union loyalty. An example of a statement is “I feel a sense of pride in being
part of this local union.” Two items from the original 7‐item version did not fit the local legislative framework and
specific nature of the union regime in the plant, and were therefore removed. These two items were “Deciding to join
the union was a smart move on my part” and “Based on what I know now, and what I believe I can expect in the future,
I plan to be a member of this union the rest of the time I work in the company.” Organisational commitment was
measured using eight items from Meyer and Allen's affective dimension (1997). An example of a statement is “I feel
like ‘part of the family’ at my organisation.”
The same scale was used to measure the transformational leadership of both the immediate supervisor and union
representative. To evaluate their immediate supervisor, respondents were referred to “the person who coordinates
and supervises your work and that of your work team on a daily basis.” To evaluate their local union representative,
they were referred to “the person with whom you most often interact and whom you recognize as your local union
representative.” This last definition referred to workshop stewards who interacted with workers on a regular basis.
Transformational leadership was measured using 12 items from the scale proposed by Podsakoff et al. (1990). An
example of an item is “My local union representative/My immediate supervisor inspires others with his/her plans for
the future.” The three items used to measure laisser‐faire leadership came from the scale proposed by Avolio et al.
(1999). An example is “My local union representative/My immediate supervisor avoids making decisions.”
Finally, six items were adapted from the scale devised by Hammer et al. (1991) to measure the perceived WRC.
An example of an item is “Workers and management try to cooperate as much as possible.”

3.4 | Analysis
A two‐step procedure was adopted following Anderson and Gerbing's (1988) recommendations. First, a confirmatory
factor analysis was used to confirm the distinct nature of our factors. We then tested our hypotheses using structural
equation modelling with AMOS 18.0 and the maximum likelihood estimation method. Compared with more traditional
analyses such as regressions, structural equations have the advantage of simultaneously estimating several
FORTIN‐BERGERON ET AL. 469

interconnected dependency relations, while including measurement errors (Byrne, 2010). Therefore, structural
equation modelling made it possible to globally assess our research model.
Considering the size of our sample and the number of parameters to be analysed in our model, we used Bagozzi
and Edwards' (1998) item parcelling method, which consists of “aggregating items into one or more ‘parcels’ and using
those parcel(s), instead of items, as the indicator(s) of the target latent construct (Cattell & Burdsal, 1975; Kishton &
Widaman, 1994)” (Matsunaga, 2008: 261). Such parcels have been considered in past studies to be “efficient, reliable,
and valid indicators of latent constructs” (Little, Rhemtulla, Gibson, & Schoemann, 2013: 285). This method consists in
calculating, for each variable, the average of the two most correlated items of the same scale to obtain a new aggre-
gated indicator (Landis, Beal, & Tesluk, 2000). This procedure was repeated until we obtained three indicators for each
variable. This technique is often used to reduce the number of parameters in the analysis while maintaining a reason-
able degree of freedom in the model (Hagtvet & Nasser, 2004).

4 | RESULTS

4.1 | Confirmatory factor analysis

The CFA allowed us to determine the model's adequacy and goodness‐of‐fit to the sample data (Byrne, 2010). Table 1
presents the results of the confirmatory factor analysis. According to Anderson and Gerbing (1988), the theoretical
measurement model needs to be compared with other plausible models in order to verify its superiority in terms of
fit to the data. Therefore, the first model tested was our 7‐factor theoretical model (Model 1). This model showed
a good fit to the data (X2 = 681.69, df = 168, CFI = .951, GFI = .925, TLI = .939, RMSEA = .061). A good‐fit model
requires that the value of the goodness‐of‐fit index (GFI), the confirmatory factor index (CFI), and Tucker–Lewis index
(TLI) be greater than 0.90 and close to 0.95, whereas the value of the root‐mean‐squared error of approximation
(RMSEA) should be lower than 0.08 (Hu & Bentler, 1995, 1999). This model was then compared with an alternative
5‐factor model (Model 2) in which the two transformational and the two laisser‐faire leadership targets (union repre-
sentatives and immediate supervisors) were merged in order to ensure that the respondents clearly distinguished
between the two agents. As this second model showed inferior fit indices (see Table 1) and was significantly inferior
to the theoretical model (ΔX2 = 2,889.88, p < .001), we can conclude that the respondents did distinguish between the
two targets in the study when evaluating leadership styles. Another alternative 6‐factor model (Model 3) combined
the two forms of commitment (union and organisational commitment) to make sure the respondents evaluated them
separately. As shown in Table 1, this second alternative model also had lower fit indices than the theoretical model
(ΔX2 = 941.129, p < .001). In sum, compared with the alternative models, the results show that the 7‐factor model

TABLE 1 Results of confirmatory factors analysis

Model
Tested models X2 ΔX2 df CFI TLI GFI RMSEA comparison
(1) Parcelling model with 7 factors 681.69 NA 168 .951 .939 .925 .061
(3 items/factor)
(2) 5‐factor model (two leadership agents 3,571.57 2,889.88*** 179 .675 .619 .670 .151 1 vs. 2
(U.R. and I.S.) merged)
(3) 6‐factor model (union and organisational 1,622.82 941.129*** 174 .861 .833 .826 .100 1 vs. 3
commitment merged)
(4) 1‐factor model 6,542.74 5,861.05*** 189 .392 .324 .488 .201 1 vs. 4

Note. CFI = confirmatory factor index; TLI = Tucker–Lewis index; GFI = goodness‐of‐fit index; RMSEA = root‐mean‐squared
error of approximation.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
470 FORTIN‐BERGERON ET AL.

(Model 1) was a better model in terms of representing the variables evaluated in the current study. Therefore, this
theoretical model was retained for the subsequent analyses.
Table 2 illustrates the means, standard deviations, correlations, and reliability coefficients for all the variables.
First, it must be noted that the results of the internal consistency analysis were satisfactory, as all reliability coeffi-
cients were above 0.7, a threshold considered to be “acceptable” in social sciences (Cortina, 1993). It should also be noted,
as seen in Table 2, that there was a positive and significant relationship between union commitment and organisational
commitment (r = 0.253, p < .01). This result is in line with previous research that used the correlational approach to assess
the presence of dual commitment and obtained similar results (Johnson, Johson, & Patterson, 1999; Snape & Chan, 2000).
In this regard, previous research has generally “found correlations from 0.22 to 0.34 to be indicative of dual commitment”
(e.g., Barling, Wade, & Fullagar, 1990; Gordon, Beauvais, & Ladd, 1984, in Robinson et al., 2012: 1344).

4.2 | Structural equations analysis

Using a similar comparison procedure as that used in the CFA, we tested our direct (1 to 3) and mediational (4 and 5)
hypotheses through structural equation modelling. First, we compared our 7‐factor theoretical model (Model 1) with a
partial mediation model. For this alternative model (Model 2), we added direct links between both transformational
and laisser‐faire leadership on the part of the union representative and union commitment, as well as between both
transformational and laisser‐faire leadership on the part of the immediate supervisor and organisational commitment.
As shown in Table 3, this partial mediation model showed a better fit to the data (ΔX2 = 476.1, p < .001). Second, to
explore the possibility that leaders in an organisation can influence commitment toward a different entity from the
one they represent (Snape & Redman, 2007), we added, in the last alternative model, cross‐links between both trans-
formational and laisser‐faire leadership on the part of the union representatives and organisational commitment and

TABLE 2 Descriptive statistics and correlations among variables

M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. Transformational L. union representative 4.42 1.32 (.96)
2. Transformational L. immediate supervisor 3.78 1.33 .222** (.95)
3. Laisser‐faire L. union representative 3.40 1.35 −.409** .004 (.74)
4. Laisser‐faire L. immediate supervisor 3.99 1.46 .064 −.356** .178** (.75)
5. Workplace relations climate 3.93 1.11 .115** .454** −.083** −.269** (.82)
6. Union commitment 4.71 1.30 .635** .148** −.340** .027 .149** (.88)
7. Organisational commitment 4.53 1.21 .256** .457** −.155** −.242** .479** .253** (.86)

Note: reliabilities are reported along the diagonal.

***p < .001. **p < .01. *p < .05.

TABLE 3 Results of structural equation modelling

Model
Tested models X2 ΔX2 df CFI TLI GFI RMSEA comparison
(1) Theoretical model of mediation 1,199.92 NA 177 .902 .884 .882 .083
(7 parcelled factors)
(2) Alternative model with partial mediation 723.82 476.1*** 173 .947 .936 .921 .062 1 vs. 2
(3) Alternative model with cross‐links 688.026 35.79*** 169 .950 .938 .925 .061 2 vs. 3
511.89 1 vs. 3

Note. CFI = confirmatory factor index; TLI = Tucker–Lewis index; GFI = goodness‐of‐fit index; RMSEA = root‐mean‐squared
error of approximation.
***p < .001. **p < .01. *p < .05.
FORTIN‐BERGERON ET AL. 471

both transformational and laisser‐faire leadership on the part of the immediate supervisors and union commitment. It
is possible that, in a context where the WRC is seen as collaborative, the leadership of union representatives will influ-
ence organisational commitment, whereas the leadership of immediate supervisors will influence union commitment.
This assumption is coherent with the consensual approach supported by dual commitment, which suggests that, in
such a case, workers will see their organisation and its constituents as sharing common interests (Angle & Perry,
1986; Beauvais, 1991; Johnson et al., 1999). This model showed a significantly higher fit to the data (ΔX2 = 35.79,
p < .001) than the partial mediation model. We therefore selected the cross‐link model (Model 3) as the final model
to use in testing our mediation hypotheses. This model, with all significant standardised coefficients, is presented in
Figure 2.
To test the existence of this common effect, we conducted a single‐common‐method factor analysis (Podsakoff,
MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003), which consisted in introducing a common factor linked to all the measurement
items, where the effects of the method factor were not constrained to be equal in the analytical model. Although this
alternative model presented a better fit than the original model (ΔX2 (21) = 219.69, p < .001), the method factor
accounted, on average, for only 9% of the variance, which is far less than the average amount (18–32%) of method
variance observed in previous research (Podsakoff, Mackenzie, & Podsakoff, 2012). The results of this test thus lead
us to believe that common method variance was likely not a serious issue in this study.
Hypothesis 1 predicted that transformational leadership on the part of union representatives and immediate
supervisors would be positively linked to workers' perception of the WRC. As the relationship for transformational
leadership on the part of union representatives was non‐significant (β = −0.01; p = n.s.), Hypothesis 1a was not sup-
ported. However, Hypothesis 1b, predicting a link between transformational leadership on the part of immediate
supervisors and workers' perception of the WRC, was confirmed (β = .485; p < .001). In other words, immediate super-
visors who showed transformational leadership exerted a positive influence on the WRC. Hypothesis 2 predicted that
laisser‐faire leadership on the part of union representatives and immediate supervisors would be negatively linked to
workers' perception of the WRC. Although Hypothesis 2a was not supported (β = −0.74; p = n.s.), Hypothesis 2b was
confirmed (β = −.114, p < .05). This means that when workers perceived their immediate supervisor to display laisser‐
faire leadership behaviours, they tended to perceive the WRC as being less collaborative. Finally, Hypothesis 3 pre-
dicted that workers' perception of the WRC would be positively linked to both union and organisational commitment.
Our final model confirmed both hypotheses, showing a positive link between workers' perception of the WRC and
both union commitment (β = 0.115; p < .01) and organisational commitment (β = .414; p < .001).

FIGURE 2 Final research model with standardised coefficients

472 FORTIN‐BERGERON ET AL.

To test our mediation hypotheses (4 and 5), we followed the procedure proposed by Kenny, Kashy, and Bolger
(1998). According to these authors, four conditions have to be met for mediation to be established. The first condition
consists in demonstrating that there is, a priori, a significant relationship between the independent variable (i.e., leader-
ship) and dependent variable (i.e., commitment). As shown in Table 2, the correlations between the independent and
dependent variables in our study were significant. To meet the second and third conditions, it is necessary to
demonstrate a significant relationship between the independent variable and the mediating variable, and between the
mediating variable and the dependent variable. As seen in Figure 2, the influence of the immediate supervisor's leadership
style on the WRC was significant. However, the influence of the union representative's leadership style was not signifi-
cant. Therefore, Hypotheses 4a and 4b were not tested as they did not meet the first three conditions of mediation.
We thus tested the fourth condition of mediation only for Hypothesis 5. The structural equation model presented
in Figure 2 shows that when the mediating variable (perception of WRC) was present, the direct link between transfor-
mational leadership on the part of immediate supervisors and organisational commitment was weakened (β = .223,
p < .001 as compared with r = .457 p < .01). The Sobel test, which makes it possible to determine and better understand
the significance of the indirect effect (Preachers & Hayes, 2004), also showed that the indirect relationship between
transformational leadership on the part of immediate supervisors and organisational commitment was significantly
different from zero when the mediating variable was present (β = .20, p < .001), thus confirming the presence of partial
mediation. Hypothesis 5a, predicting that the WRC would act as a mediator between transformational leadership on
the part of immediate supervisors and organisational commitment, was thus confirmed. As for Hypothesis 5b, the
direct link between laisser‐faire leadership on the part of immediate supervisors and organisational commitment
became insignificant in the presence of the mediator, that is, the WRC (β = −.084, p = n.s.). Furthermore, the Sobel test
showed that there was a significant indirect relationship (β = −.047, p < .05) between these variables. We can thus
conclude in favour of total mediation, meaning that the WRC fully explained the effect of laisser‐faire leadership on
the part of immediate supervisors on organisational commitment. Hypothesis 5b was therefore supported.

5 | DISCUSSION

The aim of this study was to test the mediating role played by the WRC in the relationship between the leadership
styles of the front‐line representatives of both management and union and the dual commitment of workers. Our
results led to three main observations.
First, our results build on previous studies arguing that union–management collaboration requires a change in
strategies and behaviours on the part of local union and management actors (Balser & Winkler, 2012; Eaton &
Rubinstein, 2008; Harrisson et al., 2011; Kochan et al., 2008), by empirically demonstrating that the leadership
behaviours displayed by these representatives can improve or impair workplace relations. In fact, considering the
leadership style of both union and management representatives, our results show that the influence of the immediate
supervisor's leadership styles (transformational and laisser‐faire) on the WRC was significant, whereas that of the
union representative's leadership styles were not. This interesting finding can be considered in light of the
concept of distance in the leadership literature (Antonakis & Atwater, 2002), which has shown that structural distance
(i.e., ratio of employees per supervisor) can moderate the leader's influence on workers' attitudes (Avolio, Zhu, Koh, &
Bhatia, 2004). As leadership is based mostly on relational components, the proximity and frequency of interaction
between the leader and workers may influence whether or not the leader will represent an important source of infor-
mation to workers regarding their work environment. Whereas the immediate supervisor's role is generally to coordi-
nate and supervise work on a daily basis, that of the union representative does not necessarily require regular contact,
as its main mandate is to advise and represent workers with regard to workplace issues and disputes. Our results can
thus be seen as a reflection of the fact that workers interact more frequently with their immediate supervisor than
with their union representative, rather than as an indication that union representatives are less effective. Because
the immediate supervisor can represent a prevailing source of social information at work, we conducted an empirical
FORTIN‐BERGERON ET AL. 473

verification whereby we tested a structural equation model with only the two leadership styles shown by union rep-
resentatives. In this model, from which the immediate supervisor was absent, the relationship between transforma-
tional leadership on the part of union representatives and workers' perception of the WRC became significant
(β = .102, p < .01), whereas the relationship between laisser‐faire leadership and workers' perception of the WRC
remained insignificant. Structural distance is thus an interesting avenue for future research, given that this variable
could be a potential moderating variable in the relative influence of managerial and union leaders on commitment
among unionised workers.
Second, our study not only provides additional evidence of the existence of dual commitment (Carson et al., 2006;
Ezirim et al., 2011; Robinson et al., 2012), but also empirically demonstrates that collaborative union–management rela-
tions do not necessarily weaken the relationship between the union and its members. In this respect, the positive links
between the WRC and both union and organisational commitment in our final model are in line with the argument that
positive workplace relations provide the right cognitive conditions (Festinger, 1957) for the adoption of dual commit-
ment by limiting workers' role conflicts (Magenau et al., 1988). Moreover, the positive correlation between both forms
of commitment in our sample shows that dual commitment can exist even in highly challenging environments such as
the aerospace industry. This result also reaffirms the position that workers who are committed to their union do not nec-
essarily harbour antagonistic feelings toward management. Our results regarding the positive links between transforma-
tional behaviours on the part of union representatives and both union and organisational commitment not only reinforce
this position, but also yield additional insights to the literature on local union leadership by providing evidence that
unions, though appropriate training and support to local representatives, can foster dual commitment among workers.
Third, by showing that the WRC is one of the mechanisms through which leadership can influence the commit-
ment of unionised workers, our study empirically demonstrates previous propositions regarding the intervening role
of the WRC (Cafferkey & Dundon, 2015; Dastmalchian, 2008; Pyman et al., 2010). As such, immediate supervisors
who display transformational leadership will foster organisational commitment among workers, by contributing to
develop a WRC based on mutual recognition and trust within their organisation. Such relationship patterns were
briefly discussed by Gordon and Ladd (1990) but had never before been empirically tested. It should be noted that
this mediation was partial in our final model, showing that other mechanisms should be considered in future research.
Our results regarding the mediations also indicate that an immediate supervisor with a laisser‐faire leadership style
will negatively affect organisational commitment, mainly by impairing the WRC. This finding led us to believe that
laisser‐faire leadership on the part of management representatives is likely to have a greater impact on unionised
workers' attitudes when these representatives are seen by the latter as contributing to or amplifying workplace con-
flicts or misunderstandings. Such findings reinforce the importance of the social information processing perspective
(Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978) as an analytical framework when analysing individual attitudes in a work context. Indeed,
it shows that unionised workers' perception of the WRC represents an individual cognitive representation (Parker
et al., 2003) of their work environment that can influence their attitudes, such as their commitment to both their union
and their organisation. However, although our final model reveals that WRC represents an important mechanism to
explain the effect of first‐line managers' leadership behaviours, our results also indicate that WRC is probably not
as central to explain the effects of local union representatives' behaviours. This unexpected result can be the reflec-
tion of the fact that local union representatives interact less frequently with workers and suggests that other mech-
anisms should be considered in future research in order to understand the process by which these representatives can
foster workers' dual commitment.
From a practical standpoint, our study has implications for HR departments in terms of leadership training and
development for first‐line managers, who can influence the nature of the WRC in their organisations. In fact, this
research empirically shows that union–management collaboration implies the leaders' accountability in terms of lead-
ership, not only on the part of the top‐level organisational hierarchy, but also on the part of the first‐line management
(Eaton, Rubinstein, & McKersie, 2004; Kochan et al., 2008). In this sense, our study provides valuable pointers
concerning the content of leadership training for unionised firms that are looking to shift to a more cooperative
approach in their relations with the union.
474 FORTIN‐BERGERON ET AL.

This research also has implications for union organisations that are looking to reinforce their power and foster
their members' feeling of belonging, in a social context where the labour market is marked by a growing trend toward
individualisation (Beck & Beck‐Gernsheim, 2001). In this respect, our research shows that, by displaying the right lead-
ership behaviours in their interactions with members, local union representatives can play a pivotal role in fostering
not only union commitment but also organisational commitment, or dual commitment, among their members. For
unions, the capacity to directly influence workers' dual commitment can represent a way to maintain and even extend
their power and influence, in an economic context where commitment from workers constitutes a distinctive advan-
tage for firms. This implies that union organisations, which have traditionally concentrated their training efforts on
technical functions such as grievance handling, also need to focus on leadership and relational skills development.

6 | C O N CL U S I O N

Building on the social information processing perspective, this study sought to analyse how union representatives' and
immediate supervisors' leadership styles relate to both union and organisational commitment, or “dual commitment.”
It should be noted that this study has a certain number of limitations, each of which offers opportunities for future
research.
First, the cross‐sectional nature of our data prevents us from confirming the causality presupposed in the relation-
ship analysed. We also cannot completely rule out the possibility of a reverse relationship, with WRC having an influ-
ence on the perception of union and management representatives' leadership styles. Future research should use a
longitudinal research design to address this limitation. Second, the fact that all the variables were evaluated by the
same source (workers) represents another limitation. Although we demonstrated that common method did not repre-
sent a serious problem in our data, future research should use multiple sources to measure leadership and commit-
ment to completely rule out the possibility of common method bias. Third, the possibility that the relationship
found in this research might be affected by other variables that we did not control for should be noted. For instance,
the seniority or even the personality of the respondents might have influenced their perception of leadership styles.
Fourth, the fact that the WRC variable was analysed at the individual‐level should be considered. It could be interest-
ing in future research to use individuals' assessment of WRC aggregated at the workplace‐level to analyse how
leadership behaviours on the part of union and management representatives can influence the perception of WRC
at the workplace‐level and affect dual commitment at either the individual or workplace‐level. Finally, although the
generalisability of our results is limited due to the fact that the data came from a single organisation, it would be inter-
esting to see whether comparable results could be found not only among the network of suppliers linked to this
leading subsidiary of Montreal's aerospace cluster, but also in similar industrial environments such as the automobile
industry. Nevertheless, future studies conducted in other types of organisations (e.g., public) with different economic
pressures and type of workers (e.g., professional) could improve the generalisability of our results.

ACKNOWLEDGEMEN TS
This research is part of the program of the Interuniversity Research Centre on Globalisation and Work (CRIMT). It was
funded by HEC Montreal (internship grant) and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
(SSHRC; Grant 430‐2014‐00064), to which the authors express their thanks.

CONF LICT OF INTE R ES T

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

ENDNOTES
1
Research on transformational and laisser‐faire leadership also generally includes transactional leadership (Bass, 1985; Burn,
1978). However, considering that the roles of local union representatives mainly involve advising, orienting, and supporting
FORTIN‐BERGERON ET AL. 475

members with grievance and work‐related issues, as well as maintaining union vitality at the local level, this leadership style
—which includes behaviour based on individual exchanges and directive methods focused on enhancing performance and
rewarding employees (Bass & Bass, 2008)—is considered by many authors to be less well adapted to local union
representatives' reality and relationship with members (Barling, Fullagar, & Kelloway, 1992; Cregan et al., 2009; Snape &
Redman, 2004).

ORCID
Chloe Fortin‐Bergeron http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4756-0326

RE FE R ENC ES
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two‐step
approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411–423.
Angle, H., & Perry, J. (1986). Dual commitment and labor‐management relationship climates. Academy of Management Journal,
29(1), 31–50.
Antonakis, J., & Atwater, L. (2002). Leader distance: A review and a proposed theory. The Leadership Quarterly, 13(6),
673–704.
Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M., & Jung, D. I. (1999). Re‐examining the components of transformational and transactional leadership
using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72(4), 441–462.
Avolio, B. J., Zhu, W., Koh, W., & Bhatia, P. (2004). Transformational leadership and organizational commitment: Mediating
role of psychological empowerment and moderating role of structural distance. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
25(8), 951–968.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Edwards, J. R. (1998). A general approach for representing constructs in organizational research.
Organizational Research Methods, 1(1), 45–87.
Balser, D. B., & Winkler, A. E. (2012). Worker behavior on the job: A multi‐methods study of labor cooperation with
management. Journal of Labor Research, 33(3), 388–413.
Barling, J., Fullagar, C., & Kelloway, E. K. (1992). The union and its members: A psychological approach. New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Barling, J., Wade, B., & Fullagar, C. (1990). Predicting employee commitment to company and union: Divergent models.
Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63, 49–61.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York, NY: Free Press.
Bass, B. M., & Bass, R. (2008). The Bass handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial applications. New York, NY:
Free Press.
Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational leadership. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Beauvais, L. L. (1991). Dual commitment among unionized faculty: A longitudinal investigation. Human Relations, 44(2),
175–192.
Beck, U., & Beck‐Gernsheim, E. (2001). Individualization. London: Sage Publications.
Bemmels, B. (1995). Dual commitment: Unique construct or epiphenomenon? Journal of Labor Research, 16(4), 401–422.
Brislin, R. W. (1980). Translation and content analysis of oral and written material. In H. C. Triandis & J. W. Berry (Eds.),
Handbook of cross‐cultural psychology (Vol. 2) (pp. 389–444). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
Byrne, B. (2010). Structual equation modeling with Amos. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis Group.
Cafferkey, K., & Dundon, T. (2015). Explaining the black box: HPWS and organizational climate. Personnel Review, 4(5),
666–688.
Carson, P., Carson, K., Birkenmeier, B., & Toma, A. (2006). Looking for loyalty in all the wrong places: A study of union and
organization commitments. Public Personnel Management, 35(2), 137–151.
Cattell, R. B., & Burdsal, C. A. Jr. (1975). The radial parceling double factoring design: A solution to the item‐vs. ‐parcel con-
troversy. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 10, 165–179.
Chew, J., & Chan, C. (2008). Human resource practices, organizational commitment and intention to stay. International Journal
of Manpower, 29(6), 503–522.
Cortina, J. M. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and application. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(1),
98–104.
476 FORTIN‐BERGERON ET AL.

Cregan, C., Bartram, T., & Stanton, P. (2009). Union organizing as a mobilizing strategy: The impact of social identity and
transformational leadership on the collectivism of union members. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 47(4), 701–722.
Danford, A., Richardson, M., Stewart, P., Tailby, S., & Upchurch, M. (2004). High performance work systems and workplace
partnership: A case study of aerospace workers. New Technology, Work and Employment, 19(1), 14–29.
Dastmalchian, A. (2008). Industrial relations climate. In N. Bacon, E. Heery, J. Fiorito, & P. Blyton (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of
industrial relations (pp. 548–587). London, UK: Sage Publications.
Deery, S., & Iverson, R. (2005). Labor‐management cooperation: Antecedents and impact on organisation performance.
Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 58(4), 588–609.
Doucet, O., Fredette, M., Simard, G., & Tremblay, M. (2015). Leader profiles and their effectiveness on employees' outcomes.
Human Performance, 28(3), 244–264.
Doucet, O., Poitras, J., & Chênevert, D. (2009). The impacts of leadership on workplace conflicts. International Journal of
Conflict Management, 20(4), 340–354.
Eaton, S. C., & Rubinstein, S. A. (2008). Tracking local union involved in managerial decision‐making. Labor Studies Journal,
31(2), 1–29.
Eaton, S. C., Rubinstein, S. A., & McKersie, R. B. (2004). Building and sustaining labor‐management partnerships: Recent
experiences in the US. Advances in Industrial & Labor Relations, 13, 137–156.
Ezirim, C. B., Nwibere, B. M., & Emecheta, B. C. (2011). The interactive relationship between organizational commitment and
union commitment in the Nigerian workplace. International Journal of Business and Public Administration, 8(2), 19–35.
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Fortin‐Bergeron, C., Doucet, O., & Hennebert, M.‐A. (2013). Le leadership transformationnel comme source d'engagement
syndical: Le rôle modérateur de la justice. Relations Industrielles/Industrial Relations, 68(3), 409–430.
Fullagar, C., Clark, P., Gallagher, D., & Gordon, M. E. (1994). A model of the antecedents of early union commitment: The role
of socialization experiences and steward characteristics. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15(6), 517–533.
Gall, G., & Fiorito, J. (2012). Toward better theory on the relationship between commitment, participation and leadership in
unions. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 33(8), 715–731.
González‐Romá, V., Peiró, J. M., & Tordera, N. (2002). An examination of the antecedents and moderator influences of climate
strength. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 465–473.
Gordon, M., Beauvais, L., & Ladd, R. (1984). The job satisfaction and union commitment of engineers. Industrial and Labor
Relations Review, 37, 359–370.
Gordon, M. E., & Ladd, R. T. (1990). Dual allegiance: Renewal, reconsideration, and recantation. Personnel Psychology, 43,
37–69.
Greene, A. M., Black, J., & Ackers, P. (2000). The union makes us strong? A study of the dynamics of workplace union
leadership at two UK manufacturing plants. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 38(1), 75–93.
Hagtvet, K. A., & Nasser, F. M. (2004). How well do item parcels represent conceptually defined latent constructs? A
two‐facet approach. Structural Equation Modeling, 11(2), 168–193.
Hammer, T. H., Currall, S. C., & Stern, R. N. (1991). Worker representation on boards of directors: A study of competing roles.
Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 44(4), 661–680.
Harrisson, D., Roy, M., & Haines, V. III (2011). Union representatives in labour–management partnerships: Roles and identities
in flux. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 49(3), 411–435.
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1995). Evaluating model fit. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and
applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indices in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus
new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.
Johnson, W. R., Johson, G. J., & Patterson, C. R. (1999). Moderators of the relationship between company and union
commitment: A meta‐analysis. The Journal of Psychology, 133(1), 85–103.
Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta‐analytic test of their relative
validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 755–768.
Kelloway, E. K., & Barling, J. (1993). Members' participation in local union activities: Measurement, prediction, and replication.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(2), 262–279.
Kelloway, E. K., Catano, V. M., & Southwell, R. (1992). The construct validity of union commitment: Development and
dimensionality of a shorter scale. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 65(3), 197–211.
Kelly, J. (2004). Social partnership agreements in Britain: Labor cooperation and compliance. Industrial Relations, 43(1),
267–292.
FORTIN‐BERGERON ET AL. 477

Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Bolger, N. (1998). Data analysis in social psychology. In T. Daniel, S. T. Fiske, & L. Gardner (Eds.),
The handbook of social psychology (4th ed.) (pp. 233–265). New York, NY: McGraw‐Hill.
Kim, J.‐W., & Rowley, C. (2006). Commitment to company and labour union: Empirical evidence from South Korea.
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 17(4), 673–692.
Kishton, J. M., & Widaman, K. F. (1994). Unidimensional versus domain representative parceling of questionnaire items: An
empirical example. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54, 757–765.
Kochan, T. A., Adler, P. S., McKersie, R. B., Eaton, A. E., Segal, P., & Gerhart, P. (2008). The potential and precariousness of
partnership: The case of the Kaiser Permanente labor management partnership. Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy
and Society, 47(1), 36–65.
Landis, R. S., Beal, D. J., & Tesluk, P. E. (2000). A comparison of approaches to forming composite measures in structural
equation models. Organizational Research Methods, 3(2), 186–207.
Lee, J. (2004). Company and union commitment: Evidence from an adversarial industrial relations climate at a Korean auto
plant. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 15(8), 1463–1480.
Little, T. D., Rhemtulla, M., Gibson, K., & Schoemann, A. M. (2013). Why the items versus parcels controversy needn't be one.
Psychological Methods, 18(3), 285–300.
Magenau, J. M., Martin, J. E., & Peterson, M. M. (1988). Dual and unilateral commitment among stewards and rank‐and‐file
union members. Academy of Management Journal, 31(2), 359–376.
Martinez Lucio, M., & Stuart, M. (2002). Assessing partnership: The prospects for, and challenges of modernization. Employee
Relations, 24(3), 252–261.
Matsunaga, M. (2008). Item parceling in structural equation modeling: A primer. Communication Methods and Measures, 2(4),
260–293.
Metochi, M. (2002). The influence of leadership and member attitudes in understanding the nature of union participation.
British Journal of Industrial Relations, 40(1), 87–111.
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace: Theory, research, and application. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Morissette, L., Barré, P., Levesque, C., Solar‐Pelletier, L., & Silveira Campos Moreira, M. M. (2013). El desarrollo de ventajas
competitivas institucionales: El caso de la industria aeroespacial en Montreal. In M. Casalet (Ed.), La industria aeroespacial:
Complejidad productiva e institucional (pp. 21–48). Mexico: FLASCO.
Morris, M., Kleiner, L. J. S., & Pilarski, A. M. (2002). How industrial relations affects plant performance: The case of commercial
aircraft manufacturing. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 55(2), 195–218.
Opina, S., & Yaroni, A. (2003). Understanding cooperative behavior in labor management cooperation: A theory‐building
exercise. Public Administration Review, 63(4), 455–471.
Parker, C. P., Baltes, B. B., Young, S. A., Huff, J. W., Altmann, R. A., Lacost, H. A., & Roberts, J. E. (2003). Relationships between
psychological climate perceptions and work outcomes: A meta‐analytic review. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24(4),
389–416.
Plimmer, G., & Blumenfeld, S. (2012). Trade union delegate leadership and membership commitment: A cross‐sectional anal-
ysis. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 33(8), 750–762.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A
critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on
followers' trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 1(2), 107–142.
Podsakoff, P. M., Mackenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and
recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 539–569.
Preachers, K. J., & Hayes, A. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedure for estimating indirect effect in simple mediation models.
Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36(4), 717–731.
Pyman, A., Holland, P., Teicher, J., & Cooper, B. K. (2010). Industrial relations climate, employee voice and managerial attitudes
to unions: An Australian study. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 48(2), 460–480.
Rahim, M. A. (2010). Managing conflict in organizations. Piscataway, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Redman, T., & Snape, E. (2016). The consequences of dual and unilateral commitment to the organization and union. Human
Resource Management Journal, 26(1), 63–83.
Robinson, S. D., Griffeth, R. W., Allen, D. G., & Lee, M. B. (2012). Comparing operationalizations of dual commitment and their
relationship with turnover intentions. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 23(7), 1342–1359.
478 FORTIN‐BERGERON ET AL.

Roche, W. K. (2009). Who gains from workplace partnership? International Journal of Human Resource Management, 20(1),
1–33.
Sadler, J. (2012). The importance of multiple leadership roles in fostering participation. Leadership & Organization Development
Journal, 33(8), 779–796.
Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. (1978). A social information processing approach to job attitudes and task design. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 23(2), 224–253.
Sarros, J. C., Cooper, B. K., & Santora, J. C. (2008). Building a climate for innovation through transformational leadership and
organizational culture. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 15(2), 145–158.
Shan, H., Hu, E., Wang, L., & Liu, G. (2014). Study on antecedent variables of dual commitment in the transitional economy.
Pakistan Journal of Statistics, 30(5), 939–955.
Shih, H. A., Chiang, Y. H., & Chen, T. J. (2012). Transformational leadership, trusting climate, and knowledge‐exchange behav-
iors in Taiwan. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 23(6), 1057–1073.
Snape, E., & Chan, A. W. (2000). Commitment to company and union: Evidence from Hong Kong. Industrial Relations, 39(3),
445–459.
Snape, E., & Redman, T. (2004). Exchange or covenant? The nature of the member‐union relationship. Industrial Relations,
43(4), 855–873.
Snape, E., & Redman, T. (2007). The nature and consequences of organization‐employee and union‐member exchange: An
empirical analysis. Journal of Labor Research, 28(2), 359–374.
Soskice, D. W., & Hall, P. A. (2001). Varieties of capitalism: The institutional foundations of comparative advantage. Oxford, UK:
Oxford University Press.
Takeuchi, R., Chen, G., & Lepak, D. P. (2009). Through the looking glass of a social system: Cross level effects of high
performance work systems on employees' attitudes. Personnel Psychology, 62(1), 1–29.
Twigg, N. W., Fuller, J. B., & Hester, K. (2007). Transformational leadership in labor organizations: The effects on union
citizenship behaviors. Journal of Labor Research, 29(1), 27–41.
Valizade, D., Ogbonnaya, C., Tregaskis, O., & Forde, C. (2016). A mutual gains perspective on workplace partnership:
Employee outcomes and the mediating role of the employment relations climate. Human Resource Management Journal,
26(3), 351–368.
Zohar, D., & Tenne‐Gazit, O. (2008). Transformational leadership and group interaction as climate antecedents: A social
network analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(4), 744–757.

How to cite this article: Fortin‐Bergeron C, Doucet O, Hennebert M‐A. The role of management and trade
union leadership on dual commitment: The mediating effect of the workplace relations climate. Hum Resour
Manag J. 2018;28:462–478. https://doi.org/10.1111/1748‐8583.12191

View publication stats