Confidence at Work and Individualism-Collectivism: An Empirical Demonstration of the Distinctiveness of American Union Employees
- 118 Downloads
Provided is an empirical demonstration of the distinctiveness of American union employees in regard to individualism-collectivism. Using confidence at work as an individual difference predictor and featuring willingness to equate success and failure with coworkers, and holistic thinking, as individualism-collectivism outcomes, relational differences between nonunion and union employees were shown. Specifically, inverse confidence at work-collectivism relationships were present for nonunion employees, but absent for union employees. Because such differences were hypothesized based on a view of union socialization as overlaid socialization—in which it is argued that internalized dominant culture individualism is not eradicated by union socialization but rather is situated within a work collective—the scholarly view that American union demise is inevitable due to dominant culture individualism is called into question. Suggestions to strengthen the empirical basis for the demonstrated distinctiveness of union employees are offered.
KeywordsConfidence at work (self-efficacy) Individualism Collectivism Union employees
The reference to “we” in this article is genuine. It is intended to acknowledge and to thank the following students for their dedicated and skilled survey work: Jocelyn Claudio, Matthew Croteau, Mario Moreno, Nathanael Park, Virginia Otero, Anne Rathey, Alexander Sorvillo, and Kenan Turkic. Thanks also must be extended to Katherine Holzer to acknowledge her diligent work in gathering and annotating measures.
Compliance With Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All procedures used in this study involving participants are in accordance with the ethical standards of the first author’s institution and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants in the study in the form of an information sheet.
- Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
- Brown, H. P. (1990). The counter-revolution of our time. Industrial Relations, 29, 1–14.Google Scholar
- Ezorsky, G. (2007). Freedom in the workplace? Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
- Fosh, P. (1981). The active trade unionist. London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Frangi, L., Boodoo, U. M. A., & Hebdon, R. (2016). To strike or not to strike? Strike propensity among non-strikers in 14 OECD countries. In M. Marín Corbera, X. Domènech Sampere, & R. Martínez i Muntada (Eds.), III International Conference Strikes and Social Conflicts: Combined historical approaches to conflict. Proceedings (pp. 209–230). CEFID-UAB: Barcelona.Google Scholar
- Hochschild, J. L. (1995). Facing up to the American dream: Race, class, and the soul of the nation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- Kelly, J. (1998). Rethinking industrial relations: Mobilization, collectivism and long waves. London: Routledge. doi: 10.1163/156920699794750939.
- Kessler-Harris, A. (1987). A century of struggle: Trade unions mirror society in conflict between collectivism and individualism. Monthly Labor Review, 110, 32–35.Google Scholar
- Na, J., Grossmann, I., Varnum, M. E. W., Kitayama, S., Gonzalez, R., & Nisbett, R. E. (2010). Cultural differences are not always reducible to individual differences. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107, 6192-6197. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1001911107.
- Nisbett, R. E. (2003). The geography of thought: How Asians and Westerners think differently and why. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
- Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
- Uphoff, W. H., & Dunnette, M. D. (1956). Understanding the union member. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar