Trust Representations between Managers and Union Representatives: A Qualitative Analysis
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Trust is a crucial component of cooperation in the context of introducing new forms of work organization and union/management partnership. A qualitative analysis of trust representations of managers and union representatives reveals that trust prevails throughout the forming of new social ties although there are important differences as to prior conditions. The research shows that trust is a multidimensional concept in which personal, situational and factual variables are all present. Moreover, trust shows an ambiguous type of relation, depending on the agents present in the relation, the specific situation and what is at stake. Lewicky and Bunker (1997) identified three types of trust : calculated trust, information-based trust and identity-based trust. Our study finds that the agents wish to transform the relation but also to maintain their own distinct identity. Nonetheless, the agents have some hesitation about placing their trust in the other, based on common identity.The paper therefore attempts to analyse empirical dimensions of trust between managers and union representatives. The data were collected through open questions sent to HR and IR managers and union presidents in 1000 Quebec firms: 251 questionnaires answered by union representatives and 223 completed by managers were returned. Except for 45 dyads, the questionnaires answered by one party could not be paired up with the second party.Firstly, the results show that trust is related to personal qualities such as loyalty, sensitivity to the other, commitment, sincerity, experience and other factors. Although the attributes of both parties seem similar, there is a significant difference between the two. From union representatives, managers wish to have the affirmation of a new type of leadership and competence, the possibility of employee mobilization behind the competitive goals set by managers. Therefore, the union representative is trustworthy if he or she shares the firm community’s values. On the other hand, union representatives ask for a symmetrical relation between the two parties. They require new resources of power. Trust is not a component of the relation if this relationship is characterized by domination. Communication is also an key component of trust. Frequent meetings, dialogue on real issues that can be dealt with, demonstrations of openness and a new code of conduct without confrontation, are all mentioned as preconditions. Trust is closely related to regular exchanges of information. Trust then is either calculated or information-based.The second finding suggests that the conditions under which trust is possible are threefold: (1) structural conditions based on components such as market and employment growth; (2) situational conditions such as special events, a strike or a major lay off; (3) relational conditions which are assigned to the agents’ reputation.In conclusion, emphasis is placed on the ambiguity of the relation showing a simultaneous desire to transform the relation while both agents play their traditional role. Each party recognizes the necessity of building a new tie without rejecting their own interests, values and needs and those of the other party.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,011 | 0,021 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,007 | 0,005 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».