Abstracts
Résumé
Cette étude a pour but d’analyser les facteurs contribuant à bâtir la confiance entre employés syndiqués et cadres après une grève de longue durée dans une succursale bancaire. Des entrevues semi-dirigées auprès de treize employés et cinq cadres, des observations et une analyse documentaire ont servi à déterminer ces facteurs. Ces derniers ont été analysés à la lumière des écrits scientifiques pour établir un modèle relationnel et analyser la situation vécue par les membres de l’organisation à l’étude.
Abstract
The effects of strikes have always preoccupied industrial relations’ scholars and practitioners. Even though statistically, there have been fewer strikes in Quebec during the last few years, they have not been of lesser interest. The most recent strikes have been more apparent because of their longer duration. This study discusses trust between managers and unionized employees who have returned to work after a fourteen-month strike. The objective is to better understand the phenomenon of trust in a situation of organizational conflict and, more precisely, to analyze the factors that contribute to re-establishing trust between union employees and managers following this major conflict.
A few theoretical concepts about trust help us understand the basic elements needed to produce collaborative relationships. Among other things, categories of trust established by Lewicki and Bunker (1996) as well as Zucker (1986) are presented to help make a better judgment with regard to the different types of relationships and to understand the way in which they present themselves in particular situations. This section ends with an overview of the authors’ theoretical perspective, an institutional approach, which makes reference to Powell and Dimaggio’s (1991) framework.
Because of the difficulty to access multiple companies affected by a strike, a qualitative case study was conducted. Thirteen union employees and five managers chosen randomly among each job category from a total of forty-six employees make up the sample. They were interviewed during semi-structured interviews six months following the end of the strike. Observations about individual behaviour during the interview period were also taken into consideration. An analysis of internal documents from the organization helped bring out factual information about the state of the relationship between the two groups before, during and after the strike. It is the use of these three traditional methods that helped construct the case presented. Not only does it explain the events surrounding the conflict by using a balanced approach including information obtained from union employees and company managers, but it also includes references to articles published in local newspapers to give a temporality and a sense of place to the events.
Subsequently, the authors undertake a discussion about ways to reconstruct trust among the parties. Tables detailing the factors that can contribute to reconstructing trust according to each party are presented with representative quotes from the semi-structured interviews. In total, three common factors were raised—communication, material investments and human investments. Communication is a central concept, but it also includes its share of complexities because the simple act of communicating is not sufficient. Even if, in basic terms, material investments are perceived as advantages, they are not in practice, according to the literature on this subject. Human investments can also bring new dynamics to a company, but cannot be done to the detrimental need of removing existing personnel. To these factors, the union employees add six additional ones including desire, supervision, recognition and appreciation, respect of the collective agreement and the importance of not resorting to outsourcing. The managers also came up with four additional factors—responsibility, comprehension, company vision and the importance of providing projects to union employees. All these factors are systematically analyzed in the article in direct relation to the written scientific and theoretical literature on these subjects.
In light of this analysis, it is possible to establish a relationship between these factors and a hierarchy of their importance that can serve to explore the possibility of reestablishing trust within the organization. These relationships and this hierarchy are presented in an illustration which summarizes the study. Explanations about its creation and the way to interpret it are also included. It is important, however, to note that although the study reveals a number of important factors needed to study trust, it has its limitations which can only be rectified by studying each factor in a distinct fashion and by weighing each one individually during subsequent research.
In conclusion, this research demonstrates the difficulty to establish trust within an organization because the company does not recognize the union’s presence and its role. The company is rather searching to achieve its own objectives without taking the values and interests of its employees into account as well as those of the trade union. From a theoretical point of view, the study helps identify the limitations to trust relationships between various groups of employees, the effects of strikes on returning to work and of trust in the after-strike context. Paths for future research are explored. It is suggested to replicate the study in an institution in the same field or in different fields to open the door to the possibility of generalization. Secondly, it is suggested to weigh the factors to find out which ones would have the greatest impact on the creation of trust. And, finally, measuring the level of trust that really exists between the parties would be beneficial in understanding the scope of the division which separates them.
Resumen
El objetivo de este estudio es de analizar los factores que contribuyen a construir la confianza entre empleados sindicalizados y directivos después de una huelga de larga duración en una sucursal bancaria. Para determinar estos factores, se utilizaron entrevistas semi-dirigidas con trece empleados y cinco cuadros, observaciones directas y un análisis documentario. Dichos factores fueron analizados a la luz de escritos científicos para establecer un modelo racional y analizar la situación vivida por los miembros de la organización al estudio.
Appendices
Bibliographie
- Barber, B. 1983. The Logic and Limits of Trust. New Brunswick, New Jersey : Rutgers University Press.
- Berger, P. et T. Luckmann. 1989. The Social Construction of Reality : A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. New York : Doubleday.
- Beslin R. et C. Reddin. 2004. « How Leaders Can Communicate to Build Trust ». Ivey Business Journal Online, novembre/décembre, G1.
- Blake, R. et J. Mouton. 1975. « Group and Organizational Team Building : A Theoretical Model for Intervening ». Theories of Group Processes. C.L. Cooper, dir. New York : Wiley, 103–129.
- Blau, P.M. 1964. Exchange and Power in Social Life. New York : Wiley.
- Boss, R.W. 1978. « Trust and Managerial Problem-Solving Revisited ». Group and Organization Studies, 3, 331–342.
- Brockner, J. et P. Siegel. 1996. « Understanding the Interaction between Procedural and Distributive Justice : The Role of Trust ». Trust in Organizations : Frontiers of Theory and Research. R.M. Kramer et T.R. Tyler, dir. Thousand Oaks, Calif. : Sage, 390–413.
- Broom, L. et P. Selznick. 1955. Sociology : A Text with Adapted Readings. New York : Row, Peterson.
- Clampitt, P. et C. Downs. 1993. « Employee Perceptions of the Relationship between Communication and Productivity : A Field Study ». The Journal of Business Communication, 30 (1), 5–28.
- Clark, S. 1996. « Strike Behaviour when Market Share Matters ». Oxford Economic Papers, 48 (4), 618–639.
- Costigan, R. et al. 2004. « Predictors of Employee Trust of their CEO : A Three-Country Study ». Journal of Management Issues, 16 (2), 197–216.
- Costigan, R., S. Ilter et J. Burman. 1998. « A Multi-Dimensional Study of Trust in Organizations ». Journal of Managerial Issues, 10 (3), 303–317.
- Cummings, L.L. et P. Bromiley. 1995. « The Organizational Trust Inventory (OTI) ». Trust in Organizations : Frontiers of Theory and Research. R.M. Kramer et T.R. Tyler, dir. Thousand Oaks, Calif. : Sage, 302–330.
- Deutsch, M. 1973. The Resolution of Conflict. New Haven, Connecticut : Yale University Press.
- Doost, R. 2003. « Enron, Arthur Anderson and the Catholic Church : Are these Symptoms of a More Chronic Problem? ». Managerial Auditing Journal, 18 (1), 673–681.
- Duran, C. et B. Klein. 1992. « Managing Older Employees ». Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 13 (2), 1–2.
- Ethier, L.D. 1991. « The Effects on Intra- and Intergroup Team Building on Healing an Organization after a Labor Strike ». Thèse de doctorat, San Diego, California School of Professional Psychology.
- Gennard, J. 1981. « The Effects of Strike Activity on Households ». British Journal of Industrial Relations, 19 (3), 327–345.
- Giddens, A. 1990. The Consequences of Modernity. Stanford : Stanford University Press.
- Gillespie, N. et L. Mann. 2004. « Transformational Leadership and Shared Values : The Building Blocks of Trust ». Journal of Managerial Psychology, 19 (6), 588–607.
- Glaser, B. et A. Strauss. 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory : Strategies for Qualitative Research. Chicago : Aldine Publications.
- Golembiewski, R. et M.L. McConckie. 1975. « The Centrality of Interpersonal Trust in Group Processes ». Theories of Group Processes. C.L. Cooper, dir. New York : Wiley, 131–185.
- Golembiewski, R.T. 1986. « OD Perspective on High Performance : Some Good News and Some Bad News about Merit Pay ». Review of Public PersonnelAdministration, 7, 9–27.
- Harrisson, D. 2003. « Les représentations de la confiance entre gestionnaires et représentants syndicaux : une analyse qualitative ». Relations industrielles/Industrial Relations, 58 (1), 109–134.
- Harrisson, D. et N. Laplante. 1994. « Confiance, coopération et partenariat ». Relations industrielles/Industrial Relations, 49 (4), 696–728.
- Hebdon, R. et M. Mazerolle. 1995. « Mending Fences, Building Bridges : The Effect of Relationship by Objectives on Conflict ». Relations industrielles/Industrial Relations, 50 (1), 164–184.
- Hébert, G. 1992. Traité de négociation collective. Boucherville : Gaëtan Morin éditeur.
- Jones, G. et J. George. 1998. « The Experience and Evolution of Trust : Implications for Cooperation and Teamwork ». Academy of Management Review, 23 (3), 531–547.
- Kipnis, D. 1996. « Trust and Technology ». Trust in Organizations : Frontiers of Theory and Research. R.M. Kramer et T.R. Tyler, dir. Thousand Oaks, Calif. : Sage, 39–50.
- Knight, K.G. 1989. « Labour Productivity and Strike Activity in British Manufacturing Industries : Some Quantitative Evidence ». British Journal of Industrial Relations, 27 (3), 365–375.
- Koeszegi, S. 2004. « Trust-Building Strategies in Inter-Organizational Negotiations ». Journal of Managerial Psychology, 19 (6), 640–660.
- Kramer, J.K. et G.M. Vasconcellos. 1996 « The Economic Effect of Strikes on the Shareholders of Nonstruck Competitors ». Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 49 (2), 213–227.
- Kramer, R.M., M. Brewer et B. Hanna. 1996. « Collective Trust and Collective Action : The Decision to Trust as a Social Decision ». Trust in Organizations : Frontiers of Theory and Research. R.M. Kramer et T.R. Tyler, dir. Thousand Oaks, Calif. : Sage, 357–389.
- Lee, H. 2004. « The Role of Competence-Based Trust and Organizational Identification in Continuous Improvement ». Journal of Managerial Psychology, 19 (6), 623–629.
- Lewicki, R. et B. Bunker. 1996. « Developing and Maintaining Trust in Work Relationships ». Trust in Organizations : Frontiers of Theory and Research. R.M. Kramer et T.R. Tyler, dir. Thousand Oaks, Calif. : Sage, 114–139.
- Lewicki, R., D. McAllister et R. Bies. 1998. « Trust and Distrust : New Relationships and Realities ». Academy of Management Review, 23 (3), 438–458.
- Loomis, J. 1959. « Communication, the Development of Trust, and Cooperative Behavior ». Human Relations, 12, 305–315.
- Maslow, A. 1954. Motivation and Personality. New York : Harper Collins.
- McCauley, D. et K. Kuhnert. 1992. « A Theoretical Review and Empirical Investigation of Employee Trust in Management ». Public Administration Quarterly, 16 (2), 265–284.
- McDonald, J.T. et H. Bloch. 1996. « The Spillover Effects of Industrial Action on Firm Profitability ». Review of Industrial Organization, 15, 183–200.
- Mehling, J. 1963. Analyse socio-économique d’une grève. Montréal : Les Presses de l’École des Hautes Études Commerciales.
- Mellinger, G.D. 1956. « Interpersonal Trust as a Factor in Communication ». Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology, 52, 304–309.
- Miles, R.E. et J.B. Ritchie. 1984. « Participative Management : Quality versus Quantity ». Organizational Psychology : A Book of Reading. D.A. Kolb, I.A. Rubin et J.M. McIntyre, dir. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey : Prentice-Hall, 430–440.
- Mishra, A. 1996. « The Centrality of Trust ». Trust in Organizations : Frontiers of Theory and Research. R.M. Kramer et T.R. Tyler, dir. Thousand Oaks, Calif. : Sage, 261–287.
- Naples, M.I. 1981. « Industrial Conflict and its Implications for Productivity Growth ». The American Economic Review, 71 (2), 36–41.
- Paquet, R., I. Gaétan et J.-G. Bergeron. 2000. « Does Interest-Based Bargaining (IBB) Really Make a Difference in Collective Bargaining Outcomes? ». Negotiation Journal, 16 (3), 281–296.
- Persons, O.S. 1995. « The Effects of Automobile Strikes on the Stock Value of Steel Suppliers ». Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 49 (1), 78–87.
- Powell, W. et P. DiMaggio. 1991. The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis. Chicago : The University of Chicago Press.
- Radecki, H. 1979. The 1978–79 Strike at Inco : The Effects on Familie. A Report. Sudbury : Laurentian University Press.
- RHDC (Ressources humaines et développement des compétences Canada, Direction des informations sur les milieux de travail). 2005. « Tableau et liste des arrêts de travail 1995–2004 ».
- Roberts K.H. et C.A. O’Reilly. 1974. « Failure in Upward Communication : Three Possible Culprits ». Academy of Management Journal, 17 (2), 205–215.
- Rodgers, R. et J. Hunter. 1991. « Impact of Management by Objectives on Organizational Productivity ». Journal of Applied Psychology, 76 (2), 322–326.
- Rotter, J. 1967. « A New Scale for the Measurement of Interpersonal Trust ». Journal of Personality, 35, 651–665.
- Sauvé, M. et C. Robitaille. 2005. « Évolution des conflits de travail de longue durée de 1983 à 2002 : une vue d’ensemble ». Québec : ministère du Travail, Direction générale des politiques et de la recherche.
- Selznick, P. 1996. « Institutionalism “Old” and “New” ». Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 270–277.
- Sherif, M. 1966. In Common Predicament : Social Psychology of Intergroup Conflict and Cooperation. Boston : Houghton Mifflin.
- Stengos, T. et R. Swindinsky. 1990. « The Wage Effects of the Strike : A Selectivity Bias Approach ». Applied Economics, 22 (3), 375–386.
- Stephenson, M. et G. Pops. 1989. « Conflict Resolution Methods and the Policy Process ». Public Administration Review, 49 (5), 463–473.
- Taylor, T. 2003. « Trust within Organisations ». Personnel Review, 32 (5), 556–568.
- Tzafrir, S. et S. Dolan. 2004. « Trust Me : A Scale for Measuring Manager-Employee Trust ». Management Research, 2 (2), 115–132.
- Zand, D.E. 1972. « Trust and Managerial Problem Solving ». Administrative Science Quarterly, 17, 229–239.
- Zucker, L. 1986. « Production of Trust : Institutional Sources of Economic Structure, 1840–1920 ». Research in Organizational Behavior. B. Staw et L. Cummings, dir. Greenwich, Conn. : JAI Press, 53–111.