Transformational Leadership as a Source of Union Commitment: The Moderating Effect of Justice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While some studies of union renewal recognize the importance of understanding the act of representation, and more particularly, the relationship existing between those being represented and those doing the representing, the effect of the leadership of these union representatives has seldom been studied. This knowledge gap is addressed in two ways. First, we investigate the direct effect of the transformational leadership displayed by union representatives on union commitment. Second, we assess the moderating effect of distributive and procedural union justice on this relationship.Our questionnaire-based study involves a sample of 834 unionized workers from a company in Quebec. Multivariate linear regressions suggest the existence of a positive relationship between transformational leadership on the part of the union representative and union commitment, after controlling for age, gender, seniority and educational level. Moreover, the results show the moderating effect of procedural justice at the local union level on this relationship. More specifically, a local union recognized as offering fair and equitable procedures appears to enhance the leadership efforts of its representatives. From a theoretical perspective, this study supports social exchange theory and the group engagement model by showing that justice and transformational leadership involve the same emotional mechanisms. From a practical point of view, the results highlight the importance for local unions of paying specific attention to local practices that enhance the perception of procedural justice. These findings open up new avenues of research on revitalization efforts at the local level and the dynamics underlying the representative-represented relationship.
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 | 0.005 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".