Pergamon

Transpn Res.-E (Logistics and Tronspn Rev.), Vol. 33, No. 3, pp. 21 I- 221, 1997 % 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved

Printed in Great Britain 1366-5545/97 $17.00 + 0.00

PII: S1366-5545(W)OOOlS-5

ORGANIZATIONAL AND UNION COMMITMENT AMONG RAILROAD EMPLOYEES

JAMES C. MCELROY,* PAULA C. MORROW and MICHAEL R. CRUM College of Business, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa 50011, U.S.A.

(Received for publicarion 16 April 1997)

Abstract-This study examines the relationship between union and organizational commitment among a sample of 1167 railroad employees from four of the seven largest Class I railroads in the U.S. Specifically, the study sought to determine whether union commitment and organizational commitment were contradictory, independent, or complementary forms of commitment. An examination of the association between union and organizational commitment on a variety of employee attitudes and work-related perceptions revealed the two forms of commitment to be independent. Results are discussed in light of the literature and the implications of each form of commitment on the rail industry. 0 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd

Keywords: organizational commitment, union commitment, employee attitude.

I. INTRODUCTION

While union representation in the U.S. has been on the decline, the U.S. railroad industry remains one of the most highly unionized industries in the country. Railroad labor unions are powerful entities because, in addition to their internal role as employee representatives in collective bar- gaining, they wield considerable external clout as lobbyists before Congress and regulatory agen- cies. An understanding of the influence of unions on workers vis-h-vis the influence of the railroad organization is fundamental to successful labor management. In particular, the roles of union and organizational commitment on employee satisfaction and work-related perceptions have attracted much attention in the management literature.

Commitment is valued by both unions and organizations. Unions, for example, depend upon member loyalty for their organizing, bargaining and political action efforts (Gallagher and Clark, 1989). Moreover, organizations with highly committed employees have employees who have higher levels of job satisfaction and who are less likely to search for alternative employment and leave the organization (Mathieu and Zajac, 1990). What is less established is how this organiza- tional commitment and union commitment are related to one another.

Organizational commitment and union commitment can be related in one of three ways. First, they could be inversely related. Commitment, in this instance, could be viewed as a single conti- nuum with commitment to the union at one end, and commitment to the organization at the other. Thus, if one is highly committed to the union one cannot be committed to the organization. Second, the two may simply be independent of one another, with each having unique determinants and con- sequences. In other words, each form of commitment may be important, but for different reasons. For example, union commitment may be important for its impact on union-related factors, while organi- zational commitment may be important for organizationally-related reasons. Third, the two forms of commitment may be complementary. This last relationship would be true if organizational and union commitment were highly correlated with one another or shared antecedents/consequences.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the relationship between organizational commitment and union commitment among railroad employees by examining how these two forms of com- mitment affect railroad employee attitudes and perceptions about their work. That is, are these two forms of commitment associated with employees attitudes and perceptions in a contradictory, independent, or complementary manner?

*Author for correspondence.

211

212 James C. McElroy et al.

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

Unions often take positions favoring job security and egalitarianism, while management tends to be concerned with organizational interests which focus on competitive advantage and rewards based on merit. Sometimes these two positions are at odds with one another. In such cases, one might expect union and organizational commitment to be polar opposites. However, past research has all but ruled out this argument (Angle and Perry, 1986; Fukami and Larson, 1984). Simply put, union and organizational commitment do not appear to be a zero-sum phenomenon. Indeed, contemporary interest is in identifying the conditions under which dual commitment can be rea- lized (Beauvais et al., 1991).

What is less clear, however, is the exact nature of dual commitment. The fact that one can have dual allegiances still does not address the question of whether these allegiances are independent of one another or whether they are multiplicatively related. In the former instance, one could be loyal to both the company and the union, but the consequences of one’s loyalty to each entity would be expected to be distinct. In the latter instance, loyalty to both the company and the union would be expected to heighten the effects of either form of commitment by itself.

Investigations of dual commitment have utilized several different methodologies (Gordon and Ladd, 1990). Some have sought to investigate dual commitment using a correlational approach. That is, evidence for dual commitment is obtained when a significant positive correlation exists between scores on an organizational commitment scale and a union commitment scale. Research employing a correlational approach has yielded correlations between organizational and union commitment ranging from -0.25 to 0.77. A recent meta-analysis involving cross-cultural data revealed an average correlation of 0.42, corrected for effect size (Reed et al., 1994). This meta-ana- lysis, however, pointed to the nature of industrial relations as being an important moderator of dual commitment. In short, countries where the nature of industrial relations between management and labor was consensual reported stronger correlations between organizational and union commitment than did countries in which the nature of industrial relations was adversarial. Although a large portion of the variance was left unexplained, these data provide modest support for the notion that unionized employees exhibit a moderate level of dual commitment. Harmonious industrial relations have also been cited as an explanation for dual organizational and union commitment in a study of unionized school teachers (Iverson and Kuruvilla, 1995).

Other researchers have utilized a taxonomic approach; this separates respondents into commit- ment groups based on their responses to organizational and union commitment scales. Respon- dents falling into the high company/high union commitment category are said to have dual allegiance or dual commitment. Additional characteristics are then examined in order to provide a richer description of and identify possible antecedents of dually committed individuals. As an example, one study examined the strength of the relationship between company and union com- mitment for union members, non-union employees and employees who had resigned from their union. This study found stronger evidence for dual commitment among those who were or had been members of a union than for non-union members (Conlon and Gallagher, 1987).

Finally, some researchers use what has been labeled as a parallel approach. These researchers use separate regression analyses to determine whether the same predictors of organizational com- mitment can also be used to predict union commitment, or vice versa. For example, a common belief was that satisfaction with one’s job would promote loyalty to both the employer and the union. Research results, however, have been decidedly mixed. Some research has found factors such as job satisfaction, equity perceptions, and external labor market variables such as average wage and unemployment rates to be associated with organizational commitment but not union commitment (Johnson and Jones-Johnson, 1991; Magenau et al., 1988; Sherer and Morishima, 1989). Others have found the existence of common antecedents, e.g. job influence and quality of work life programs (Fields and Thacker, 1992; Sherer and Morishima, 1989). The most promising results, as noted earlier, focus on the quality of labor-management relations. This suggests that dual commitment may be most likely to occur in those instances where employees see both the union and the organization as instrumental in obtaining goals valued by employees. It is difficult to tell, however, given the cross-sectional nature of much of the research that employs this parallel approach, whether such studies are searching for predictors, correlates, or consequences of com- mitment to one’s employer and union. Moreover, the parallel research model seldom measures

Organizational and union commitment among railroad employees 213

dual commitment per se; rather its existence is inferred from results showing similar antecedents of both organizational and union commitment (Gordon and Ladd, 1990).

While any one of these three approaches can be used to demonstrate the existence of dual organizational/union commitment, each is problematic. None addresses the basic question sur- rounding the nature of this dual commitment; i.e. whether organizational commitment and union commitment are independent of one another and/or whether they interact in an additive or mul- tiplicative manner.

3. COMMITMENT IN THE RAILROAD INDUSTRY

The U.S. railroad industry has experienced dramatic changes since the passage of the Staggers Rail Act of 1980. Among the many changes has been a deterioration of labor-management rela- tions as management has sought to hold the line on wage increases and to negotiate increased flexibility in staffing and work rules. The results of these efforts have been impressive in terms of increased operating efficiencies. While wages and benefit packages for railroad employees remain among the most lucrative in the country, 1992 real hourly wages were just 4.4% above those of 1980. Technological advances, as well as negotiated gains in staffing flexibility, have resulted in numerous efficiencies through downsizing. For example, from 1980 through 1992, the number of Class I rail- road executives decreased nearly 35%, while decreases in other employee categories were even greater: a 67% decrease in professional and clerical employees; a 49% decrease in maintenance of way personnel; a 61% decrease in equipment maintenance workers; a reduction in train crew personnel of 54%, and a 62% decrease in transportation personnel (other than train crews) (Association of American Railroad, 1980, 1993). However, these efficiencies have resulted in an increased strain in labor-management relations.

Given the continued, rather adversarial nature of labor-management relations in the railroad industry, we hypothesize that:

Hi: Organizational commitment and union commitment among railroad employees will demonstrate an independent relationship.

Hz: Organizational commitment and union commitment will be differentially related to employee attitudes and perceptions.

Hs: Given Hi and Hz, organizational commitment and union commitment will demon- strate an additive rather than a multiplicative relationship with employee attitudes and perceptions.

4. METHOD

4.1. Sample A stratified random sample of union employees from four of the largest seven Class I railroads

in the U.S. served as the basis for the sample. * In order to assure adequate representation from each railroad as well as from each of four job/occupational categories within each railroad (shop crafts, train crews, clerks and maintenance employees), a sample of 4250 union employees was generated. Surveys were mailed directly to the homes of these selected union employees, with instructions to return the completed survey in a postage-paid return envelope directly to a uni- versity address to insure anonymity. After a twelve week period, 1167 usable responses were received, for a response rate of 27.5% for the entire sample. Response rates per occupational category ranged from a low of 21.8% in the maintenance group to a high of 27.8% in the clerks group. Response rates per railroad ranged from 22.4 to 32.2%.

4.2. Commitment variables Employee commitment to the organization and their commitment to their union served as the

commitment variables of interest in this study. Organizational commitment was measured using

*Data were collected in 1993 prior to the merger of the Southern Pacific and Union Pacific Railroads.

raw 31:J-t

214 James C. McElroy et al.

Mowday et al.‘s (1979) nine item scale. This scale employs a seven point Likert response format (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). Sample items include: “I find my values and [the com- pany’s] values are very similar” and “I really care about the fate of [the company].” Responses to the nine items are averaged to obtain a single organizational commitment score for each respon- dent. Coefficient (Y, a measure of the internal reliability of the scale, was 0.91 for this sample.

Union commitment was measured using nine items from the Commitment to the Union Scale designed to measure union loyalty (Tetrick et al., 1989). Using a five point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree), respondents were asked a number of statements about their union, including: “I feel a sense of pride being part of the union”; “The record of this union is a good example of what dedicated people can get done “; “I feel little loyalty toward this union” (reverse scored). Coefficient (Y for this scale was 0.88.

Data related to railroad organization, job/occupational classification, and organizational tenure were also collected and used as control variables in the analyses in order to better isolate the pre- dicted relationships. It is reasonable to assume that particular railroads and jobs may inherently foster lower or higher levels of commitment. In addition, organizational tenure has traditionally been shown to be positively, albeit weakly, related to organizational commitment in numerous meta-analyses (Cohen, 1993).

4.3. Employee attitudes In order to determine the association between organizational and union commitment and

employee attitudes, data were collected on three sets of attitudinal variables: job satisfaction, per- ceptions of work climate, and perceptions of labor relations.

4.3.1. Job satisfaction. Job satisfaction was measured using Smith et al’s (1969) Job Satisfaction Index (JDI). This index measures five separate facets of satisfaction; namely, satisfaction with one’s work, with chances for promotion, with pay, with one’s supervisor, and with one’s co- workers. For each of these facets, respondents are presented with a list of adjectives to which they are asked to respond ‘yes’, ‘no’, or ‘?‘, depending upon whether they feel the adjective describes that facet or whether they are uncertain of its applicability. Responses are then scored 3 for ‘yes’, 0 for ‘no’ and 1 for ‘?. Average scores for each facet are then computed. The JDI has been widely used as a measure of job satisfaction and its method of scoring, validity, and reliability have been favorably evaluated (Price and Mueller, 1986; Hanisch, 1992). For this sample, coefficient IX mea- sures of reliability ranged from 0.82 for satisfaction with pay to 0.92 for satisfaction with super- vision.

4.3.2. Perceptions of climate. Several scales were used to measure rail employee perceptions of the work climate within their rail organizations. Perceptions of warmth, structure, and identity were measured using established subscales from Litwin and Stringer’s (1968) Organizational Cli- mate Questionnaire (Form B). This instrument uses a four-point response scale (1 = definitely dis- agree, 4 = definitely agree) to assess whether respondents agree with a series of statements about a particular aspect of the climate of their employing organization. Responses are averaged to obtain a single score for each climate subscale. Sample items included: “A friendly atmosphere prevails among the people in [the company]” (warmth); “Red tape is kept to a minimum at [the company]” (structure); and “I feel I am a member of a well functioning team” (identity). Coefficient 01 for these subscales for this sample were 0.72 for warmth, 0.76 for structure, and 0.74 for identity.

Two other scales were used to capture additional perceptions of work climate thought to be espe- cially relevant in the rail industry. Perceptions of the safety climate in the organization were measured using a scale specifically designed for this study. This nine-item scale used the same response and scor- ing format as the Litwin and Stringer subscales. Respondents were asked the degree to which they agreed with such statements as “Labor and management have open discussions on safety” and “Safety is an important concern at [the company].” Coefficient a for this scale was 0.86. Finally, a 13 item scale developed by Parker and DeCotiis (1983) was used to measure perceptions of stress. Sample items included “Working here makes it difficult to spend enough time with my family” and “My job gets to me more than it should.” As with the other climate scales, a four-point response format was used and items were averaged to obtain a single indicator of employee perceptions of stress. Coefficient a! for this scale was 0.91 in this sample.

Organizational and union commitment among railroad employees 215

4.3.3. Perceptions of labor relations. Four measures were used to tap rail employee perceptions of labor relations within their respective companies: number of grievances filed, perceptions of the effectiveness of the grievance process, satisfaction with claim settlement, and intention to remain with the railroad.

Number of grievances filed was collected via a single item asking respondents to indicate the number of grievances they filed against their employing railroad. Effectiveness of the grievance process was assessed using an 18 item scale developed by Eaton et al. (1992). This scale uses a five point (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) response format and asks respondents to indicate the degree to which they agree with statements such as: “The union does a thorough job of representing members, even when they lose a grievance,” “ Even if the supervisor is out to get me, the grievance procedure protects me,” and “In our grievance procedure, a grievance with merit won’t get dropped.” Averaging the responses to the 18 items yields a single indicator of rail employee perceptions of the effectiveness of the grievance system. Coefficient o for this scale was 0.88.

Data were also collected on the level of employee satisfaction with injury claims settlements. A seven item claims settlement scale was developed specifically for this study. This scale asks respondents, who have filed an injury claim, to indicate their level of satisfaction on a five point scale (1 =very dissatisfied, 5 =very satisfied) with such aspects of injury claims as: the size of the financial settlement, determination of who was at fault, level of concern of [the railroad], level of support of the union, etc. Coefficient o for this scale was 0.84 for this sample.

Lastly, a single item was used to assess respondent intention to remain with their employing railroad company. This item used a six point response framework in asking respondents to indi- cate the probability of remaining with [the company], with 1 =very low probability (955100% likely to leave) and 6 = very high (95100% likely to stay).

5. RESULTS

Descriptive statistics for the variables included in the study are shown in Table 1. In addition to the descriptive statistics, Table 1 indicates that the correlation between organizational commitment and union commitment is only 0.06. Thus, a correlational approach to dual com- mitment offers strong support for Hypothesis 1, that the two forms of commitment are indepen- dent. On the other hand, a taxonomic approach yields a different conclusion. Taking the organizational commitment (Median = 4.20 on a seven point scale) and union commitment (Med- ian = 3.00 on a five point scale) scales and dichotomizing each at the median score yields four types of employees: those low in both forms of commitment (N=243), those high in both forms of commitment (N=244) and those high in organizational commitment but low in union commit- ment (N=231) and those low in organizational commitment but high in union commitment (N=223). Interestingly, these groups were of surprisingly equal size in this study. Consequently, support for Hypothesis 1 is dependent upon the method being employed to study dual commit- ment.

Moderated regression analysis was used to test the association of organizational commitment and union commitment with selected employee attitudes and perceptions. Table 2 shows the effects of the covariates on each attitude/perception in step 1, followed by the incremental amount of variance explained in each attitude/perception by the inclusion of organizational and union com- mitment in step 2. Finally, step 3 examines whether any additional variance is explained by the addition of an organizational commitment x union commitment interaction term. Steps 2 and 3 provide information relevant to Hypotheses 2 and 3.

Table 2 reveals strong support for the contention in Hypothesis 2 that organizational commit- ment and union commitment are differentially related to employee attitudes and perceptions. As shown in the table, organizational commitment is statistically related to four of the five job satis- faction indicators, all five of the work climate variables and two of the four perceptions of labor relations. Only in the cases of satisfaction with co-workers, number of grievances filed and per- ceptions of grievance effectiveness does organizational commitment fail to add to the model. Union commitment, on the other hand, added significantly to the model only in the cases of satisfaction with co-workers, perceptions of identity with work, perceptions of grievance effec- tiveness, and satisfaction with the handling of injury claims.

Tab

le

1.

Des

crip

tive

stat

istic

s an

d co

rrel

atio

ns

amon

g st

udy

vari

able

s

Var

iabl

es

Mea

n SD

1

2 3

4 5

6 I

8 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

Com

mitm

ent

(1)

Org

aniz

atio

n (2

) U

nion

4.

17

1.26

0.

91

3.02

0.

80

0.06

0.

88

Satis

fact

ion

(3)W

ork

(4)

Prom

otio

n (5

) Pa

y (6

) Su

perv

isor

(7

) C

o-w

orke

r

1.31

0.

63

0.53

0.

13

0.83

0.

53

0.65

0.

33

0.10

0.

38

0.83

1.

21

0.86

0.

27

0.09

0.

26

0.25

0.

82

1.51

0.

85

0.34

0.

08

0.41

0.

28

0.17

0.

92

1.75

0.

80

0.14

0.

22

0.32

0.

19

0.10

0.

24

0.71

Clim

ate

(8)

War

mth

(9

) St

ruct

ure

(10)

Id

entit

y (I

I) S

afet

y (1

2)

Stre

ss

2.25

0.

78

0.41

0.

11

0.38

0.

21

0.17

0.

34

0.29

0.

72

2.17

0.

53

0.49

0.

12

0.41

0.

33

0.23

0.

43

0.27

0.

39

0.76

2.

21

0.64

0.

65

0.15

0.

46

0.34

0.

25

0.36

0.

30

0.49

0.

55

0.74

2.

70

0.64

0.

48

-0.0

3 0.

39

0.26

0.

25

0.39

0.

18

0.33

0.

51

0.48

0.

86

2.61

0.

70

-0.3

6 -0

.03

-0.4

4 -0

.22

-0.2

3 -0

.37

-0.2

0 -0

.39

-0.3

7 -0

.37

-0.3

8 0.

91

Lab

or

rela

tions

(1

3)

Gri

evan

ces

(14)

Gri

evan

ce

effe

ctiv

enes

s (1

5) Cl

aim

sa

tisfa

ctio

n*

(16)

In

tent

to

sta

y

3.16

12

.18

-0.0

8 0.

09

-0.0

7 -0

.07

-0.0

5 -0

.11

-0.0

5 -0

.08

-0.1

0 -0

.09

-0.1

7 0.

09

- 2.

87

0.58

0.

20

0.63

0.

25

0.22

0.

18

0.24

0.

22

0.24

0.

28

0.25

0.

17

-0.2

2 0.

00

0.88

2.

86

0.13

0.

21

0.19

0.

26

0.24

0.

28

0.22

0.

13

0.21

0.

21

0.21

0.

28

-0.3

1 0.

02

0.31

0.

84

5.28

1.

19

0.45

0.

04

0.25

0.

13

0.13

0.

14

0.10

0.

22

0.20

0.

27

0.22

-0

.24

-0.0

1 0.

11

0.12

-

Cro

nbac

h (I

are

re

port

ed

alon

g th

e di

agon

al

whe

re

appr

opri

ate.

C

orre

latio

ns

2 f

0.09

ar

e st

atis

tical

ly

sign

ific

ant

at

I’<

0.01

(t

wo-

taile

d).

*N=4

86,

base

d on

ly

on

segm

ent

of s

ampl

e fi

ling

an

inju

ry

clai

m.

Step

an

d va

riab

le

Tab

le

2.

Mod

erat

ed

mul

tiple

re

gres

sion

an

alys

es

Satis

fact

ion

with

: C

limat

e L

abor

re

latio

ns

Wor

k Pr

omot

ions

Pa

y Su

perv

isio

n C

o-w

orke

rs

War

mth

St

ruct

ure

Iden

tity

Safe

ty

Stre

ss

No.

of

G

riev

ance

C

laim

In

tent

to

st

ay

grie

vanc

es

effe

ctiv

enes

s sa

tisfa

ctio

n+

Step

I

Cov

aria

tes*

R

* F

Step

2

Org

aniz

atio

n C

omm

itmen

t (O

C)

LJJ

on

Com

mitm

ent

(UC

)

AF

Step

3

ocxu

c A

R’

AF

Full

equa

tion

R2

F(l0

,325

)

0.03

0.

03

0.06

0.

01

0.01

0.

03

0.06

0.

05

0.07

0.

14

1.39

I .

29

3.19

tt 0.

67

0.30

1.

30

3.15

Zl

2.61

: 3.

5611

7.

9233

0.51

tt 0.

3Sf

0.24

tt 0.

28fT

0.

05

0.08

0.

07

0.03

0.

09

0.21

t: 0.

26

0.12

0.

06

0.08

0.

05

58.3

9rr

23.4

0tf

10.3

8rt

I5.2

4$$

8.09

*x

0.46

0.

63f

0.62

t 0.

25

-0.1

7 0.

01

0.01

0.

01

0.00

0.

00

3.30

5.

llf

4.89

: 0.

74

0.34

0.29

0.

16

0.13

0.

10

0.05

13

.4lf

f 6.

29**

4.

97X

$ 3.

6333

I .

87t

0.34

tt 0.

39=

0.56

fl

0.37

**

-0.3

3tf

0.09

0.

09

0.18

x$

-0.0

7 -0

.02

0.12

0.

16

0.34

0.

13

0.10

22

.481

3 32

.71$

* 92

.30t

t 26

.08*

* 22

.07*

*

0.39

0.

01

0.40

0.

39

0.15

0.

01

0.00

0.

01

0.00

0.

00

I .96

0.

00

2.88

2.

03

0.31

0.15

0.

22

0.40

0.

20

0.25

5.

74it

9.15

ft

21.7

2ff

8.32

:: 10

.68:

:

0.04

0.

07

I.71

3.

28tl

-0.0

9 0.

08

0.16

ft

0.46

:: 0.

07

0.58

tf

0.16

tt 0.

01

0.01

0.

34

0.05

0.

20

2.00

93

.03*

1 8.

82rt

42

.2l:t

0.39

-0

.24

0.42

-0

.06

0.00

0.

00

0.01

0.

00

I.71

1.

05

2.08

0.

05

0.05

0.

41

0.07

I .

77

22.3

0::

2.63

:x

0.02

0.

03

0.88

I .

23

0.23

9.

50tt

Unl

ess

othe

rwis

e in

dica

ted,

da

ta

valu

es

are

stan

dard

ized

be

ta

wei

ghts

at

ea

ch

step

. *R

ailr

oad

com

pany

, jo

b cl

assi

fica

tion,

or

gani

zatio

n te

nure

. ‘N

=486

, ba

sed

upon

se

gmen

t of

sam

ple

filin

g an

in

jury

cl

aim

. *p

<o.o

5;

:tP<

0.

01.

N

..I

218 James C. McElroy et al.

Of the 14 attitudinal variables included in the study, organizational commitment and union commitment revealed differential associations with 11 of the variables. Organizational commit- ment and union commitment both added to the predictive model in the cases of work identity and claim satisfaction. Neither proved to be associated with the number of grievances filed. These data provide strong support for Hypothesis 2.

Hypothesis 3 predicted an additive rather than a multiplicative interaction between organiza- tional commitment and union commitment. Data reported in step 3 of Table 2 supports this con- tention. The organizational commitment x union commitment interaction term (indicative of a multiplicative interaction) was significant in only two of the 14 attitudinal variables; satisfaction with promotions and satisfaction with pay; explaining a meager one percent additional variation in each of these variables. Furthermore, even though OC and UC both added to the models involving identity with work and claim satisfaction, the interaction term did not. Consequently, it appears from these data that where organizational commitment and union commitment are asso- ciated with employee attitudes and work perceptions, they are associated in an independent, additive manner. In other words, the association one might have from high commitment in one form will complement but not boost the association one might get from the other form of commitment.

6. IMPLICATIONS

The results of this study have implications with respect to the dual commitment literature and with respect to the role of these two forms of commitment in the rail industry. Clearly, organiza- tional commitment and union commitment play independent roles with respect to a variety of rail employee attitudes and work-related perceptions. Given the backdrop of difficult contract nego- tiations and downsizing in the rail industry in recent years, this is not surprising. This does not mean that a rail employee could not be committed to both the organization and to the union. Indeed, data reported herein indicate that a quarter of the employees do manifest such dual com- mitment.

These two forms of commitment, either separately or together, were statistically related to 13 of the 14 attitudes and work-related perceptions included in this study. Only the number of grievan- ces filed was not associated with commitment. One can only speculate about the reasons for this lack of finding. One possibility is due to the fact that the filing of grievances in this sample was a relatively uncommon practice. That is, only 363 (3 1%) of the 1167 respondents had ever filed a grievance and 107 of these (almost 30%) had filed only one grievance. Moreover, the manner in which a grievance is resolved is more likely to be connected to organizational and union commit- ment than is the mere filing of the grievance.

Another implication entails the methodology used to investigate dual commitment. As shown in connection with Hypothesis 1, one reaches different conclusions depending upon whether one uses a correlational or taxonomic approach. One possibility for this finding is that the correlational approach focuses on the constructs of organizational and union commitment, while the taxonomic approach makes individual differences more salient. For example, those employees classified as high in both organizational and union commitment (i.e. those exhibiting dual commitment) may reflect individuals who have a propensity toward commitment (Lee et al., 1992). Certainly, the issue of whether dual commitment reflects a unique individual difference variable is worthy of additional research. For example, are there common individual differences within this group of employees that are different from other types of employees (i.e. those low in both types of com- mitment, or those high in only one form of commitment)? Or, does their difference in allegiance reflect common experiences?

Organizational commitment is more closely related to rail employee attitudes and work-related perceptions than is union commitment. This is consistent with previous research showing no con- nection between union membership and union commitment on either job satisfaction or intention to quit (Gordon and DeNisi, 1995). This may be due to the fact that most of the attitudes and work-related perceptions included in this study are grounded within the context of the organiza- tion as opposed to within the union. For example, union commitment may have had a stronger association with satisfaction with one’s general chairman than it does with satisfaction with one’s supervisor. Nonetheless, the results of this study confirm the role of organizational commitment as an important correlate of employee attitudes and the behaviors that follow from them.

Organizational and union commitment among railroad employees 219

The existence and importance of organizational commitment may come as a surprise to railroad management. Prior to developing the survey instrument, one of the authors interviewed several managers and executives in the operations and labor relations areas. It was the stated belief of many that railroad workers first and foremost think of themselves as railroaders with very little allegiance to the company. Again, the survey results reveal that a large number of employees do exhibit commitment to the company. Additionally, the two climate and labor relations constructs with which organizational commitment is most strongly related are identity with work and intent to stay. Union commitment also has a significant positive relationship with identity with work, but the strength of its association is only half as great.

Organizational commitment is also an important factor in two areas where companies and unions are often in conflict. The unions have been vocal critics of railroad industry safety envi- ronment and performance. They also play a key role in forming federal safety policy and legisla- tion. Union commitment, however, does not have a significant effect on the individual rail employee’s perception of safety climate at his or her company. One should not infer that the unions do not influence workers’ attitudes about safety. Union literature (e.g. newsletters), for example, may effectively convey union concerns about safety practices. The data analysis does imply though that workers can separate their feelings about their unions from their beliefs about safety climate.

A second area where railroad and worker interests and actions are often in conflict is the claims settlement process. Claims settlement in the U.S. railroad industry is unique because of the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA), a fault-based worker injury compensation law that applies only to the railroad industry. The railroads and unions have diametrically opposed views of FELA, and the railroad managers interviewed perceive the unions to have great influence on employee satis- faction with the claims settlement process. The results of this study indicate that both union and organizational commitment are related to claim settlement satisfaction, although union commit- ment does exhibit a greater association.

Finally, the results of this study should allay any concerns that railroad managers have about employees’ commitment to their unions. First, as noted earlier, organizational commitment is more closely related to employee attitudes and work-related perceptions than is union commit- ment. Because they are independent, one form of commitment cannot compensate or substitute for another. Thus commitment to the union need not come at the expense of commitment to the organization. Second, and perhaps more importantly, organizational and union commitment have the same direction of association (i.e. both positive or both negative, though not all coefficients are statistically significant) for all of the satisfaction constructs, four of the five climate constructs, and three of the four labor relations constructs. Furthermore, for the two construct coefficients with opposing signs (i.e. safety climate and number of grievances) union commitment does not exert a statistically significant influence.

7. LIMITATIONS AND CONCLUSION

The results and implications of this study must be viewed within the context of the study’s lim- itations. Problems typically associated with this type of research include: potential nonresponse bias, the self-report nature of the data, and the lack of demonstrated causal connections among the variables in the study.

Because of the large sample size and geographical dispersion of the railroad companies included in this study, we can speak with confidence that the results of this study are representative of a significant portion of the population of railroad employees. Moreover, no serious bias was sug- gested by large over- or under-representation of railroads or occupational groups included in the study. Whether these respondents are truly representative of all railroad employees is a debatable question, however. We have no way of knowing whether the 27.5% of the employees who responded are representative of the 72.5% who did not respond. In addition, there is the question of the employees of the three additional Class I railroads that were not even included in the study. As a result, while a sample size of 1167 employees lends itself well to statistical analyses, the gen- eralizability of these results is not a certainty due to the potential for nonresponse bias.

A second limitation is the fact that all data from a given railroad were collected from a single survey at a single point in time. Relying on such self-report data leaves open the possibility that

220 James C. McElroy er al.

the results of the study may be subject to response set bias and/or common method covariance. However, we did design the questionnaire to include certain features to minimize these possibili- ties. For example, a number of the items were reverse coded to help minimize response set bias. In addition, the scale response options varied from between four to seven response options to engage the respondent’s attention. Lastly, the organizational and union commitment scales were separa- ted from each other by employee attitude measures, given that scale reordering is thought to reduce consistency artifacts (Podsakoff and Organ, 1986).

Finally, we have been very careful in this study not to imply any causal connection between organizational and union commitment and employee attitudes and perceptions. Because of the self-report, cross-sectional nature of the data collected in this survey, we have no way of knowing whether the significant associations between, say, organizational commitment and employee atti- tudes are the result of organizational commitment causing the attitudes or the attitudes causing one to be more committed to the organization. In fact, the strong association between organiza- tional commitment and any given employee attitude may be the by-product of a common rela- tionship between them and a third variable not studied in this research. Consequently, while we are limited in our ability to draw firm conclusions, the strength of the findings in this study speak to the need to causally link commitment and attitudes in future research.

While these limitations must be noted and dealt with as additional research is conducted on railroad employee commitment, they should not unduly detract from the study’s overall conclu- sion that employee commitment is highly associated with railroad workers’ satisfaction and work-related perceptions. We believe that railroads stand to benefit from increases in both the organizational and union commitment of employees. While the unions may view organizational commitment as harmful to some of their objectives, it is equally important that they recognize that organizational commitment has a favorable impact on their members’ satisfaction with work and the workplace.

Acknowledgements-The data utilized in this study were generated from a survey used in a research project funded through the U.S. Department of Transportation’s University Transportation Centers Program. The results and conclusions reported herein do not necessarily reflect the views of the funding agency. The authors would also like to acknowledge the assistance of Dr Frank J. Dooley for his assistance in the collection of the data.

REFERENCES

Angle, H. L. and Perry, J. L. (1986) Dual commitment and labor-management relationship climates. Academy of Man- agement Journal 29, 31-50.

Association of American Railroads (1980, 1993) Railroad Facts (formerly titled Yearbook of Railroad Facts Washington, DC. Beauvais, L. L., Scholl, R. W. and Cooper, E. A. (1991) Dual commitment among unionized faculty: a longitudinal inves-

tigation. Human Relations 44, 175-192. Cohen, A. (1993) Work commitment in relation to withdrawal intentions and union effectiveness. Journal of Business

Research 26, 75-90. Conlon, E. J. and Gallagher, D. G. (1987) Commitment to employer and union: effects of membership status. Academy of

Management Journal 30, 151-162. Eaton, A. E., Gordon, M. E. and Keefe, J. H. (1992) The impact of quality of work life programs and grievance system

effectiveness on union commitment. Industrial and Labor Relations Review 45, 591604. Fields, M. W. and Thacker, J. W. (1992) Influence of quality of work life on company and union commitment. Academy of

Managemenf Journal 35.439450. Fukami, C. V. and Larson, E. W. (1984) Commitment to the company and union: parallel models. Journal of Applied

Psychology 69, 367-37 I. Gallager, D. G. and Clark, P. F. (1989) Research on union commitment: implications for labor. Labor Studies Journal 14,

52-7 I. Gordon, M. E. and DeNisi, A. S. (1995) A re-examination of the relationship between union membership and job satis-

faction. Industrial and Labor Relations Review 48, 222-236. Gordon, M. E. and Ladd, R. T. (1990) Dual allegiance: renewal, reconsideration, and recantation. Personnel Psychology 43,

3769. Hanisch, K. A. (1992) The job descriptive index revisited: questions about the question mark. Journal of Applied Psychology

17, 377-382. Iverson, R. D. and Kuruvilla, S. (1995) Antecedents of union loyalty: the influence of individual dispositions and organi-

zational context. Journal of Organizational Behavior 16, 557-582. Johnson, W. R. and Jones-Johnson, G. (1991) The effects of equity perceptions on union and company commitment.

Journal of Collective Negotiations in the Public Sector 20, 23S244. Lee, T. W., Ashford, S. J., Walsh, J. P. and Mowday, R. T. (1992) Commitment propensity, organizational commitment,

and voluntary turnover: a longitudinal study of organizational entry processes. Journal of Managemenr 18, 15-32. Litwin, G. A. and Stringer, R. A. (1968) Motivation and Organizational Climate. Harvard University, Boston.

Organizational and union commitment among railroad employees 221

Magenau, J. M., Martin, J. E. and Peterson, M. M. (1988) Dual and unilateral commitment among stewards and rank-and- file union members. Academy of Management Journal 31, 359-376.

Mathieu, J. E. and Zajac, D. M. (1990) A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates, and consequences of organizational commitment. Psychological Bullefin 108, 171-194.

Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M. and Porter, L. W. (1979) The measurement of organizational commitment. Journal oJ Vocational Behavior 14, 224-247.

Parker, D. F. and DeCotiis, T. A. (1983) Organizational determinants of job stress. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 32. 160-I 77.

Podsakoff, P. M. and Organ, D. W. (1986) Self-reports in organizational research: problems and prospects. Journal oJ Management 12, 53 l-544.

Price, J. L. and Mueller, C. W. (1986) Handbook of Organizational Measurement. Pittman, Marshfield, MA. Reed, C. S., Young, W. R. and McHugh, P. P. (1994) A comparative look at dual commitment: an international study.

Human Relations 41, 1269-I 293. Sherer, P. D. and Morishima, M. (1989) Roads and roadblocks to dual commitment: similar and dissimilar antecedents of

union and company commitment. Journal of Labor Research 10, 3 I I-330. Smith, P. C., Kendall, L. M. and Hulin, C. L. (1969) The Measuremenr of Job Satisfaction in Work and Retirement. Rand

McNally, Chicago. Tetrick, L. E., Thacker, J. W. and Fields, M. W. (1989) Evidence for the stability of the four dimensions of the commitment

to the union scale. Journal of Applied Psychology 74, 8 19-822.