Trust Representations between Managers and Union Representatives: A Qualitative Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".