This study examines whether attitudinal militancy and propensity to strike represent two different constructs. The study also examines the joint effects of five models, each representing a different theoretical approach, upon the two dependent variables: propensity to strike and attitudinal militancy. Unionized employees of two occupational groups in Israel, 139 engineers, and 125 X-ray technicians, are surveyed. In general, the findings show that attitudinal militancy and propensity to strike are two independent constructs. This conclusion is supported by the factor analysis findings, the intercorrelations between the items of the measures, and the results of the regression analyses indicating different patterns of effects of the research models upon attitudinal militancy and propensity to strike. The findings also demonstrate that the commitment model and union commitment in particular, is an important determinant of union militancy. Discussion of the implications of these findings and how they relate to future investigation of union militancy conclude the paper.
Alutto, J. A., & Belasco, J. A.Determinants of attitudinal militancy among nurses and teachers. Industrial and Labour Relations Review, 1974, 27, 216-227.
2.
Anderson, J. C.Local union participation: A re-examination. Industrial Relations, 1979, 18, 18-31.
3.
Bacharach, S., Bamberger, P., & Conley, S.Professionals and workplace control: Organizational and demographic models of teacher militancy. Industrial and Labour Relations Review, 1990, 43, 570-586.
4.
Barling, J., Wade, B., & Fullagar, C.Predicting employee commitment to company and union: Divergent models. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 1990, 63, 49-61.
5.
Becker, H. S.Notes on the concept of commitment. American Journal of Sociology, 1960, 66, 32-40.
6.
Becker, T. E., Foci and bases of commitment: Are they distinctions worth making?Academy of Management Journal, 1992, 35, 232-244.
7.
Black, A. W.Some factors influencing attitudes toward militancy membership, solidarity and sanctions in a teachers' union. Human Relations, 1983, 36, 973-986.
8.
Blau, G. J.Using a person-environment fit model to predict job involvement and organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 1987, 30, 240-257.
9.
Cohen, J., & Cohen, P.Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd Ed.). Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum. 1983.
10.
Dalton, D. E., & Todor, W. D.Grievances filed and the role of the union steward vs. the rank and file member: An empirical test. International Review of Applied Psychology, 1981, 30, 199-207.
11.
Dalton, D. R., & Todor, W. D.Antecedents of grievance-filing behavior: Attitude/behavior constituency and the union steward. Academy of Management Journal, 1982, 25, 158-169.
12.
Fullagar, C., & Barling, J.A longitudinal test of the antecedents and consequences of union loyalty. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1989, 74, 213-227.
13.
Fullagar, C., & McCoy D., & Shull, C.The socialization of union loyalty. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 1992, 13, 13-26.
14.
Gordon, M. E., & Ladd, R.Dual allegiance: Renewal, recommendation, and recantation. Personnel Psychology, 1990, 43, 37-69.
15.
Gordon, M. E., Philpot, W. J., Burt, E. R., Thompson, A. C., & Spiller, E. W.Commitment to the union: Development of a measure and an examination of its correlates. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1980, 65, 479-499.
16.
Gouldner, A. W.Cosmopolitans and locals: Toward an analysis of latent social roles. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1957, 2, 281-306.
17.
Gouldner, A. W.Cosmopolitans and locals: Toward an analysis of latent social identity. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1958, 3, 444-480.
18.
Griffin, R. W., & Bateman, T. S.Job satisfaction and organizational commitment. In C. L. Cooper & 1. Roberton (Eds.), International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1986, pp. 157-188.
19.
Hirschman, A. O.Exit, Voice and Loyalty. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1970.
20.
Klandermans, B.Mobilization and participation: Social psychological expansion of resource and mobilization theory. American Sociological Review, 1984, 49, 583-600. (a)
21.
Klandermans, B.Mobilization in trade union action: A value-expectancy approach. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 1984, 57, 107-120. (b)
22.
Klandermans, B.Perceived costs and benefits of participation in union action. Personnel Psychology, 1986, 39, 379-397. (a)
23.
Klandermans, B.Psychology and trade union participation: Joining, acting, quitting. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 1986, 59, 189-204. (b)
24.
Magenau, J. M., & Martin, J. E.Patterns of commitment among rank and file union members: A canonical analysis. Proceedings of the 37th Annual Meeting. Industrial Relations Research Association Series. Dallas, Texas, 1984, pp. 455-464.
25.
Magenau, J. M., Martin, J. E., & Peterson, M. M.Dual and unilateral commitment among stewards and rank-and-file union members. Academy of Management Journal, 1988, 31, 359-376
26.
Martin, J. E.Predictors of individual propensity to strike. Industrial and Labour Relations Review, 1986, 39, 214-227
27.
McGee, G. W., & Ford, R. C.(Two or more) dimensions of organizational commitment: Reexamination of the affective and continuance commitment scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1988, 72, 638-642.
28.
McShane, S. L.The multidimensionality of union participation. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 1986, 59, 177-187.
29.
Meyer, P. J., & Allen, J. N.Testing the side bet theory of organizational commitment: Some methodological considerations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1984, 69, 372-378.
30.
Morrow, P. C., Concept redundancy in organizational research: The case of work commitment. Academy of Management Review, 1983, 8, 486-500.
31.
O'Reilly, C. A., & Chatmen, J.Organizational commitment and psychological attachment: The effects of compliance, identification and internalization on prosocial behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1986, 71, 492-499.
32.
O'Reilly, C. A., Bloom, J. R., & Parlette, G.N. Professional workers and union activity: The impact of individual and contextual factors on the decision to strike. Paper presented at the 85th Meeting of the American Psychological Association, San Francisco. August, 1977.
33.
Perline, M., & Lorenz, V. R.Factors affecting member participation in trade union activities. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 1970, 29, 425-437.
34.
Portwood, J., Pierson, D., & Schmidt, S.When less is more: A study of the participation/satisfaction relationship in unions. Proceedings of the Forty-First Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management. San Diego, Academy of Management, 1981.
35.
Ramaswamy, E. A.The participatory dimension of trade union democracy: A comparative sociological view. Sociology, 1977, 11, 465-480.
36.
Reichers, A. E.A review and reconceptualization of organizational commitment. Academy of Management Review, 1985, 10, 465-476.
37.
Schutt, R. K.Models of militancy: Support for strikes and work actions among public employees. Industrial and Labour Relations Review, 1982, 35, 406-422.
38.
Shirom, A.Union militancy: Structural and personal determinants. Industrial Relations, 1977, 16, 152-162.
39.
Steel, R. P., & Ovalle, N. K.A review and meta-analysis of research on the relationship between behavioral intentions and employee turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1984, 69, 673-686.
40.
Steers, R. M., & Rhodes, S. R.Major influences on employee attendance: A process model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1978, 63, 391-407.
41.
Thacker, J. W., Fields, M. W., & Barclay, L. A.Union commitment: An examination of antecedents and outcomes variables. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 1990, 63, 33-48.
42.
Wiener, Y., & Vardi Y.Relationships between job, organization and work outcomes: An integrative approach. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1980, 26, 81-96.
