E
MPLOYEES
’ P
ERCEPTIONS OF
U
NION
E
FFECTIVENESS
ROSARIABURCHIELLI*
T
his paper presents a new approach to the measurement of union effectiveness: using a framework derived from existing theory, this is applied in an Australian setting, capturing the views of ninety-eight union officials, administrative and industrial staff, through a qualitative empirical study.UNION EFFECTIVENESS
The concept of union effectiveness is based on theory on organisational effective-ness (Cameron & Whetten 1983b; Fiorito, Jarley, & Delaney 1993; 1995). In line with this, the union effectiveness literature distinguishes between the causes of effectiveness (or its determinants) and the ways in which effectiveness might be measured (or its indicators).
In general, it appears there is no controversy relating to the determinants of union effectiveness; there appears to be broad agreement that union effective-ness is brought about by a combination of union characteristics and environmental factors (Fiorito, Gramm, & Hendricks, 1991).
In terms of the indicators of union effectiveness, however, there are few empirical studies and much less clarity. There is little evidence available on the measurement of union effectiveness and existing research is problematic. First, there is no way of telling whether any single study has fully mapped the concept. Second, existing studies are based on different samples and research methods and identify different effectiveness indicators. Hence, as well as being ‘patchy’, the existing evidence is confusing because it cannot be compared.
One large study of US national unions is based on union leaders’ perceptions (Fiorito et al.1993) and identifies six indicators of union effectiveness. These are: bargaining, politics, self-help, organising, member-solidarity and resource acquisition’ (p. 123). Findings are derived largely from a survey and measures were extrapolated from the unions’ strategies, while other organisational characteristics were purposely ignored: ‘structuring or democracy are viewed as determinants of effectiveness rather than indicators’ (Fiorito et al.1993).
In a later study, the same researchers focused on organising effectiveness, one of their own previously identified measures (Fiorito et al.1995), and found that innovation and internal democracy enhanced organising effectiveness.
Another US study, focussing on teacher unions, identifies ‘five conceptually and empirically distinct dimensions of union effectiveness’ (Hammer & Wazeter 1993). These are: ‘member participation in union activities, preparation for negotiations, union activities to create a supportive external environment, union mentality (commitment to a collective bargaining model) and local leadership’ (Hammer & Wazeter 1993). The sample in this study includes union members and leaders and findings reflect strategic, structural and ideological measures which account for important organisational dimensions, namely strategy, structure and ideology.
In an Australian study, Gahan and Bell (1999) focus on one key variable in union strategy and analyse the union’s relationship with its members in terms of the extent of ‘member-orientation’ (Gahan & Bell 1999). This study is based on a convenience sample of union officials. The single measure reflects the tension ‘between organisational and representative goals’, as a recognised organisational feature of trade unions (Child, Loveridge & Warner 1973; Crouch 1982) and is additionally based on the relationship between effectiveness and customer orientation, observed in the marketing literature (Gahan & Bell 1999).
Overall, the existing research is confusing. How do we make sense of the differ-ences in the findings? After all, there are limited commonalities and apparently conflicting findings. It is difficult to draw any comparisons between studies; much less to identify any critical measures of union effectiveness.
It may be argued that differences are to be expected in a new area of research; that these reflect the difficulty of developing useful and realistic indicators of effectiveness, a fact previously observed in the organisational effectiveness literature (Cameron & Whetten 1983b). Given the multiple variables that impact on effectiveness, such as distinct and conflicting goals (Seashore 1983; Weick & Daft 1983), different stakeholders (Kanter & Summers 1987) and favourable or unfavourable environments at any given time (Boxall & Haynes 1997), it is likely that the differences observed between the studies indicate that the concept of union effectiveness has not been fully mapped out. This is a common feature of organisational effectiveness research (Cameron & Whetten, 1983a). Thus, rather than interpreting the different evidence as conflicting, it can be compared to a partial picture, slowly emerging through research. In addition, the limited evidence suggests it is likely that there are different types of union effectiveness. On the other hand, the distinct indicators are consistent with accepted, but distinct, union characteristics. Importantly, the indicators reflect the administrative
and representative dimensions of the trade union (Child et al. 1973). These relate to unions’ simultaneous, and sometimes conflicting, organisational and membership goals. Additionally, two studies identify indicators which reflect the
opposed to the ‘servicing’ one (ACTU 1999; Boxall & Haynes 1997; Ellem 2002; Peetz 1998). The three dimensions (representation, administrationand ideology) are quintessential characteristics of unions. Moreover, when the different effective-ness indicators in extant research are viewed in light of these, they do not appear as contradictory, but rather as the detailed examples of essential and distinct union characteristics.
A NEW FRAMEWORK OF UNION EFFECTIVENESS
As essential dimensions of the union character, representation, administrationand
ideologylend themselves to being used, in concert, as a framework which provides a theoretical means for delimiting the construct of union effectiveness. Following from this, the union effectiveness construct may be represented in a new typology of union effectiveness, as shown in Table 1.
When put together, the three dimensions provide an ideal-type model. Each indicator of effectiveness here is conceptually distinct from the others. As each indicator is broad, it allows for different sub-types as measures. Thus, the model permits the assimilation of different findings, such as those in existing research. For example, ‘member-orientation’, the single measure described by Gahan and Bell (1999) can be understood as a type of representativeeffectiveness, while the indicator described by Fiorito et al.(1993) as ‘resource-acquisition’ is a type of
administrativeeffectiveness.
This paper applies the derived model to research conducted in an Australian union context, in order to further explore union effectiveness. The major question guiding the research is: ‘What is union effectiveness?’
EMPIRICAL WORK AT THREEAUSTRALIAN UNION BRANCHES
A qualitative study was conducted at the state branches of three Australian trade unions, all of which had suffered major membership losses and were interested in examining effectiveness. The major instrument for data collection was a semi-structured interview constructed around key domains linked to effectiveness in the literature: length of time with, and reasons for working for the union; union goals; union strategy; union structure; and a question on effectiveness. A qualitative methodology was selected as it is suited to uncovering new material (Kvale 1996; Miles & Huberman 1994).
Differing from existing research, which canvasses only the views of union leaders, interviews were conducted with all salaried employees at each union branch, that is, the officials, industrial and administrative staff. This type of research is scarce in Australia and internationally (Clark, Grey & Solomon 1996; Kelly & Heery 1994). The staff of a union deal directly with other organisational stakeholders and have strong, ideologically-based beliefs (Kelly & Heery 1994;
Table 1 Typology of union effectiveness
McBride 2001; Watson 1988), on the issues which constrain and facilitate union processes. Their perceptions can therefore contribute valuable insights to the understanding of union effectiveness.
The sample of ninety-eight respondents provided much rich data. NUD*IST software was used for its advanced capacities in indexing and theory building, and allowed the systematic application of the ‘classic set of analytic moves’ common to qualitative data, including reflection, searching for patterns and categorising responses (Miles & Huberman 1994). The analysis focused on discerning how union employees defined and measured their union’s effective-ness. The process of condensing, interpreting and categorising (Kvale 1996) the data initially resulted in 13 distinct measures through which union employees perceived effectiveness. These 13 measures were subsequently integrated in the model of union effectiveness derived from union theory (Table 2), and are subsequently discussed.
Effectiveness in representationaggregates three specific measures of effective-ness: ‘Recruitment’; ‘Responsiveness to Members’; and ‘Achieve key union goals’ (Table 2). Recruitmentis important to union employees because it provides the basis for union survival, growth and strength: ‘An effective union is large, and can then create expectations of strength. On the strength of those numbers, you get a better bargaining position.’
Having attracted new members, the union must be responsive to them with relevant and timely services. Responsiveness is also about the achievement of key union goals, valued by the membership, such as improved wages and conditions: “A major criteria is wages and conditions because that is your absolute key obligation to union members: to be the means by which they secure improve-ments to their wages and conditions.”
Representative effectiveness therefore encompasses different effectiveness measures such as recruiting new members and retaining existing members by being effective in achieving outcomes which respond to their needs and simul-taneously reflect stated union goals. This type of effectiveness corresponds to unions’ ‘primary, bed-rock task of representing their members’ immediate interests.’ (Crouch 1982: 168).
Table 2 Measures of union effectiveness by type of indicator
Effectiveness in Effectiveness in Effectiveness in representation administration ideology
Responsiveness to members Structure and strategy Social values Recruitment Innovative practices Cohesiveness Achieve key union goals Goal clarity Active members
Leadership Union commitment Staff accountability Politicise environment
Effectiveness in administrationaggregates five effectiveness criteria: ‘Structure and Strategy’; ‘Innovative Practices’; ‘Goal Clarity’; ‘Leadership’; and ‘Staff Accountability’ (Table 2). Staff discussion of effective union structures and strategy
is profound and complex and includes reflections on workplace and delegate structures and processes, as well as bureaucratic ones. The structure and strategy measure has an interface with the other measures in this type, such as having
procedural and goal clarity, which relates both to defining the outcomes the union is working towards, as well as having articulated organisational routines and policies. The issue of accountabilityis related to the source of union finances. Staff are aware that salaries of members are often lower than branch salaries and that members’ wages pay their wages. This has implications for the use of time; thus, accountability inside the branch is a serious matter related to the integrity of the branch, as well as a contributing factor to its effectiveness: ‘The work requires that we do things for the members as they are the ones that pay our wages.’
Branch employees associate effectiveness with committed, well-resourced
leadership figures, who can communicate well, are responsive and can inspire trust. Staff also place importance on the use of innovative practicesin the branches, which may consist of new initiatives to tackle challenges, or simply, finding improved ways of working:
We need to be facilitators of change, there is more than the traditional way of doing things, it is not just about money or wages. More and more, industrial relations will occur in the workplace and that is not how union officials have worked in the past. We have to be pro-active; we cannot just react any more.
As an indicator, administrative effectiveness reflects the bureaucratic aspect of labour unions, identified in union theory as a key characteristic (Child
et al. 1973; Strauss et al. 1991). It is a reminder that union activity is carried out through formal and informal structures and processes, and highlights the important role of union employees, alongside members, in achieving union effectiveness.
Effectiveness inideologyaggregates five effectiveness criteria: ‘Social values’; ‘Ideological cohesion’; ‘Develop active membership’; ‘Union commitment’; and ‘Politicise Environment’ (Table 2). The data indicates that effectiveness partly depends on the unions’ ability to enact and reproduce an ideological dimension in performing union work: ‘An effective union is able to give concrete form to certain ideals.’
Importantly, shared values are believed to have a positive bearing on union work. The values emerging from the data include participation, commitment, cohesiveness, equality and militancy. The strength of these values fuels the activity of the union and thus, simultaneously constitutes a measure of union effectiveness:
workplaces. An effective union is able . . . t o develop its membership — and politicise broadly.
The absence of shared values can result in factionalism or fragmentation, and is associated with ineffectiveness; therefore ideological cohesion is seen as important.
The importance of the adoption of a common set of values is related to other criteria in this type and is suggested in the discussion on developingand politicising union members, which empowers individuals and strengthens the union as a whole: ‘Longer term effectiveness is to politicise the members; so that you’ve brought the members to a level where they can do things for them-selves; that stewards and members on the job feel that they are the union; to encourage the collective.’
Commitmentto the union is perceived as central to the achievement of union goals, such as recruitment and the provision of services to members. It is defined as a type of attachment, loyalty and dedication which results in staff exceeding normal work expectations. Finally, union staff suggest it is important to exert an ideological influence on the wider environmentthrough social justice campaigns, which are intended to have benefits beyond union membership into sections of the community.
In summary, this research finds support for a typology of effectiveness based on three key dimensions of the trade union. Both the representative and adminis-trative indicators replicate findings in union theory and other effectiveness studies (Fiorito et al. 1993; 1995; Gahan & Bell 1999; Hammer & Wazeter 1993). In fact, while they have never been treated as indicators of effectiveness, the administrativeand representativedimensions have been raised within general discussions of union effectiveness (Crouch 1982):
Union effectiveness . . . requires that the two are reconciled since the unions’ adminis-trative efficiency depends upon membership support and hence on representative effectiveness (Willman & Cave 1994).
On the other hand, prior to the research reported here, ideology has not been viewed as an indicator of effectiveness, even though it is consistent with the proposition that ‘unions are driven by ideology’ (Kelly & Heery 1994: 14). It is, perhaps, not surprising that an ideological measure is supported in a study of union employees, who hold strong ideological beliefs. Moreover, and in spite of it being a problematic construct, this measure suggests that ideology may be related to union performance.
IMPLICATIONS AND FURTHER RESEARCH
As challenging as it is conceptually, the ideological measure of effectiveness has a resonance with the current Australian debate on union renewal strategies based on the organising model; it suggests there is logic to growing unions through the enactment and reproduction of a shared value system. As such, further research should focus on unpacking the concept of ‘union values’ and might include attempts to define what these are. Unions may not identify with a particular ideology, but, in its absence, may still subscribe to certain values, which can provide an ideological glue. Furthermore, it would be instruc-tive to understand the differences, along ideological lines, of some of the different stakeholders in the union organisation. This could have important implications for union strategy.
REFERENCES
ACTU (1999) unions@work. Melbourne: ACTU.
Boxall P, Haynes P (1997) Strategy and trade union effectiveness in a neo-liberal environment.
British Journal of Industrial Relations 35(4), 567–591.
Cameron KS, Whetten DA (1983a) Organizational effectiveness: one model or several? In: Cameron KS & Whetten DA eds. Organizational Effectiveness : A Comparison of Multiple Models. New York: Academic Press.
Cameron KS, Whetten DA. eds (1983b) Organizational Effectiveness: A Comparison of Multiple Models. New York: Academic Press.
Child J, Loveridge R, Warner M (1973) Towards an organizational study of trade unions. Sociology
7(1), 71–91.
Clark PF Grey L. & Solomon N (1996) The union as employer: personnel practices in Canadian labour unions. Relations Industrielles 51(3), 488–504.
Crouch C (1982) Trade Unions: The Logic of Collective Action. Glasgow: Fontana Paperbacks. Crouch C (1996) Trade unions and ideology: Unions and industrial relations systems. In:
Pasture P, Verberckmoes J, De Witte H, eds. The Lost Perspective? Trade Unions Between Ideology and Social Action in the New Europe(Vol. 2). Aldershot: Avebury.
Ellem B (2002) ‘We’re Solid’: Union renewal at BHP Ore, 1999–2002. Paper presented at the Unions 2002: Future Strategies for the Union Movement, Melbourne, Australia.
Fairbrother P (2000) Trade unions at the crossroads. New York: Mansell.
Fiorito J, Gramm CL, Hendricks WE (1991) Union structural choices. In: Strauss G, Gallagher DG & Fiorito J eds. The State of the Unions. Madison, Wisconsin: Industrial Relations Research Association.
Fiorito J, Jarley P, Delaney JT (1993) National union effectiveness. Research in the Sociology of Organisations 12, 111–137.
Fiorito J, Jarley P, Delaney JT (1995) National union effectiveness in organizing: measures and influences. Industrial and Labour Relations Review, 48(4), 613–35.
Freeman R (1995) The future of unions in decentralized collective bargaining systems: US and UK unionism in an era of crisis. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 33(4), 519–536. Frenkel SJ, Coolican A (1984) Unions against Capitalism? A Sociological comparison of the Australian
Building and Metal Workers Unions. Sydney: George Allen & Unwin.
Gahan P, Bell S (1999) Union strategy, membership orientation and union effectiveness: an exploratory analysis. Labour and Industry,9(3).
Hammer TH, Wazeter D L (1993) Dimensions of local union effectiveness. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 46(1), 302–319.
Heery E, Kelly J (1994) Professional, participative and managerial unionism: an interpretation of change in trade unions. Work, Employment and Society, 8(1), 1–22.
Hyman R (1975) A Marxist approach to union objectives. In: McCarthy WEJ ed. Trade Unions
2nd edn. Ringwood: Penguin Books Australia.
Kanter RM, Summers DV (1987) Doing well while doing good: dilemmas of performance measurement in nonprofit organizations and the need for a multiple-constituency approach. In: Powell WN, ed. The Nonprofit Sector: A Research Handbook.pp. 154–166. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Kelly J, Heery E (1994) Working for the Union: British Trade Union Officers: Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
Kvale S (1996) Interviews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
McBride A (2001) Gender democracy in trade unions. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Miles MB, Huberman AM (1994) Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook.2nd edn. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
Peetz D (1998) Unions in a Contrary World: The Future of the Australian Trade Union Movement. Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.
Seashore SE (1983) A Framework for an integrated model of organizational effectiveness. In: Cameron KS & Whetten DA eds. Organizational Effectiveness : A Comparison of Multiple Models. New York: Academic Press.
Strauss G, Gallagher DG, Fiorito J, eds (1991) The State of the Unions. Madison, Wisconsin: Industrial Relations Research Association.
Watson DH (1988) Managers of Discontent : Trade Union Officers and Industrial Relations Managers. London: Routledge and Kegan.
Webb B, Webb S (1920) The History of Trade Unionism. London: Longmans.
Weick KE, Daft RL (1983) The effectiveness of interpretation systems. In: Cameron KS & Whetten DA eds. Organizational Effectiveness : A Comparison of Multiple Models. New York: Academic Press. Willman P, Cave A (1994) The Union of the Future: Super-Unions or Joint Ventures? British Journal
