The applicability of commitment models in a unionized professional workplace
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose – The changing dynamics of current workplaces and the increasing employment of professionals in large bureaucratic organizations calls for a renewed examination of commitment at work. This study assesses a three-component model of professional commitment in a unionized environment to determine the applicability of a three-component model of professional commitment and its effect on participation in union and professional activities. This paper aims to discuss these issues. Design/methodology/approach – A cross-sectional survey of licensed practical nurses tests the validity of a three-component model of professional commitment concurrent with union commitment; the impact of commitment on varying levels of participation in union and professional activities is examined. Findings – Support is found for a three component of professional commitment based on Meyer and Allen's model of organizational commitment. Normative professional commitment has an inverse relationship to outcomes compared to professional affective commitment and union affective commitment, eflecting the professional socialization process. Research limitations/implications – Sample size limits the generalizability of the findings. A larger study, with longitudinal design, would contribute to understanding the operation of union and professional commitment in the same workplace. Practical implications – Support for a variety of union and professional activities is linked to both union and professional commitment, indicating there may be shared values motivating participation in these activities. It may be possible to overcome the negative association between normative commitment and engagement in activities through emphasis on affective commitment to both the union and the profession. Originality/value – The findings are important for the increasing number of professionals employed in unionized settings, particularly in the public sector, whose collective bargaining rights are being threatened.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".