The data come from a study on new work relations between employers
and unions. The sample includes union representatives and managers in
goods and services firms that adopted different kinds of innovations.
One thousand firms, each with more than 50 workers, were included in the
study. A total of 242 union representatives and 221 managers returned
their questionnaires. The sample was generally characterized by
medium-or large-sized firms with a high proportion of male workers
occupying permanent positions and with several years of seniority.
However, there are differences between manufacturing sector firms and
services sector firms. The latter employ more women who are less likely
to have permanent positions and who have fewer years of seniority. Trust
was measured using the average of four dimensions of the Butler scale:
integrity, discretion, promise of results, and overall trust. The alpha
coefficient of this trust indicator is 0.93 for both union
representatives and managers. A second dependent variable measures the
improvement in the trust relationship following the adoption of the
innovation that the respondent considers to be the most significant. The
two dependent variables (trust relationship and improvement of this
relationship) have been analyzed using multiple regression and according
to a model that includes several dimensions: socio-demographic
characteristics, socio-economic context, labour relations climate,
access to information, types of innovations, implementation process for
innovations and their impacts.
The union representatives indicated a lower level of trust (3.15
vs. 3.81/5) and fewer of them believe that trust increased following the
adoption of the most significant innovation (27% vs. 44%). The
differences between the union representatives and managers remain
significant, after adjustment for different dimensions of the analytical
model. This shows that the relationship is asymmetrical: the union
representatives have less control over the situation and feel more
vulnerable to potential opportunistic behaviours on the part of their
management counterpart. Nevertheless, both the trust relationship and
its improvement following the adoption of the most significant
innovation are influenced by different dimensions of the analytical
model. First of all, both the managers and the union representatives in
the manufacturing sector are less likely than those in the services
sector to feel trust. Trust is not highly related to the socio-economic
context, although managers have more trust when the work force is
declining; the trust of union representatives is lower when
subcontracting increases. Trust is influenced by the labour relations
climate. Thus trust is lower when there are more grievances or when
grievances are increasing. However, trust is stronger when grievances
tend to be resolved internally. Trust is also higher when respondents
have access to the information requested from their counterpart.
Innovations also influence trust, which is lower following the adoption
of monetary innovations, but higher when other types of innovations are
adopted: labour relations, work organization, training. The process of
adopting innovations is important for improving the trust relationship,
both when they are adopted to respond to human factors rather than
factors linked to productivity, as well as when they are established
through a negotiation process and a joint monitoring mechanism. Finally,
negative impacts decrease trust while positive impacts do not influence
the relationship of trust between union representatives and managers.
The study revealed the factors that can favour the development of a
relationship of trust between union representatives and managers
following the adoption of social innovations. The process of adopting
these innovations rather than the type of innovations seems to have a
more important impact on the improvement of the trust relationship.
However, this development should not be seen as an automatic
transposition of the trust relationship to other members of the
organization. Another question to be addressed is to what extent trust
can be built without the parties losing their own identity. Our results
support those of other studies that seem to show that although the
cognitive dimension Of trust can be developed readily between the agents
at work, this is not true of identity-based trust.
BIBLIOGRAPHIE
ALTER, Norbert. 2003. L'innovation ordinaire. Paris : PUF.
ATKINSON, Sally et David Butcher. 2003. << Trust in
Managerial Relationships >>. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 18
(4), 282-304.
BECERRA, Manuel et Anil K. GUPTA. 2003. << Perceived
Trustworthiness within the Organization : The Moderating Impact of
Communication Frequency on Trustor and Trustee Effects >>.
Organization Science, 14 (1), 32-44.
BIGLEY, Gregory A. et Jone L. PEARCE. 1998. << Straining for
Shared Meaning in Organization Science : Problems of Trust and Distrust
>>. Academy of Management Review, 123 (3), 405-421.
BLUNSDON, Betsy et Ken REED. 2003. << The Effects of
Technical and Social Conditions on Workplace Trust >>.
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14 (1), 12-27.
BORNAREL, Frederic. 2007 << La confiance comme instrument
d'analyse de l'organisation >>. Revue francaise de
gestion, 175, 95-109.
BOURQUE, Reynald. 1999a. << Cooperation patronale-syndicale
et reorganisation du travail >>. Relations
industrielles/Industrial Relations, 54 (1), 136-167.
BOURQUE, Reynald. 1999b. << Confiance et negociation
>>. La confiance: approches economiques et sociologiques. C.
Thuderoz, V. Mangematin et D. Harrisson, dir. Paris : Gaetan Morin
Europe, 261-287.
BROWN, William et Sarah OXENBRIDGE. 2004. << The Development
of Cooperative Employer/Trade Union Relationships in Britain >>.
Industrielle Beziehungen, 11 (1), 143-158.
BRYSON, Alex. 2001. << The Foundation of
'Partnership'? Union Effect on Employee Trust in Management
>>. National Institute Economic Review, 176, 91-104.
BUTLER, John K. 1991. << Toward Understanding and Measuring
Conditions of Trust : Evolution of a Conditions of Trust Inventory
>>. Journal of Management, 17 (3), 643-663.
CAMPOY, Eric et Valerie NEVEU. 2006. << Proposition
d'une echelle de mesure de la confiance organisationnelle >>.
Revue de gestion des ressources humaines, 62, 21-38.
CLARK, Murray C. et Roy L. PAYNE. 1997. << The Nature and
Structure of Worker's Trust in Management >>. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 18, 205-224.
CUTCHER-GERSHENFELD, Joel. 1991. << The Impact on Economic
Performance of a Transformation in Workplace Relations >>.
Industrial & Labor Relations Review, 44 (2), 241-260.
DIETZ, Graham. 2004. << Partnership and the Development of
Trust in British Workplaces >>. Human Resource Management Journal,
14 (1), 5-24.
DONADA, Carole et Gwenaelle NOGATCHEWSKY. 2007. << La
confiance dans les relations interentreprise : une revue des recherches
quantitatives >>. Revue francaise de gestion, 175, 111-124.
FONSTAD, Nils O., Robert B. MCKERSIE et Susan C. EATON. 2004.
<< Case Analysis : Interest-Based Negotiations in a Transformed
Labor-Management Setting >>. Negotiation Journal, 20 (1), 5-11.
HARRISSON, Denis. 1999. << Confiance idenditaire, confiance
cognitive et processus d'innovation >>. La confiance,
approches economiques et sociologiques. C. Thuderoz, V. Mangematin et D.
Harrisson, dir. Paris: Gaetan Morin Europe, 209-236.
HARRISSON, Denis. 2003. << Les representations de la
confiance entre gestionnaires et representants syndicaux : une analyse
qualitative >>. Relations industrielles/Industrial Relations, 58
(l), 109-136.
HARRISSON, Denis et Normand LAPLANTE. 1994. << Confiance,
cooperation et partenariat : un processus de transformation dans
l'entreprise quebecoise >>. Relations
industrielles/Industrial Relations, 49 (4), 696-729.
HARRISSON, Denis et Normand LAPLANTE. 2006. << La confiance
non reciproque : les relations asymetriques entre representants
syndicaux et gestionnaires >>. Innovations sociales dans le
travail et l'emploi : recherches empiriques et perspectives
theoriques. P.-A. Lapointe et G. Bellemare, dir. Quebec : Les Presses de
l'Universite Laval, 101-130.
JALETTE, Patrice et Jean-Guy BERGERON. 2002. << L'impact
des relations industrielles sur la performance organisationnelle
>>. Relations industrielles/ Industrial Relations, 57 (3),
542-566.
KARPIK, Lucien. 1996. << Dispositifs de confiance et
engagements credibles >>. Sociologie du travail, 38 (4), 527-550.
LE FLANCHEC, Alice, Jacques ROJOT et Catherine VOYNNET FOURBOUL.
2006. << Retablir la confiance dans l'entreprise par le
recours a la mediation >>. Relations industrielles/Industrial
Relations, 61 (2), 271-295.
LEWICKI, Roy J. et Barbara Benedict BUNKER. 1996. <<
Developping and Maintaining Trust in Work Relationships >>. Trust
in Organizations : Frontiers of Theory and Research. R. M. Kramer et T.
R. Tyler, dir. Thousands Oaks, Calif. : Sage Publications, 114-139.
LEWICKI, Roy J., Daniel J. MCALLISTER et Robert J. BIES. 1998.
<< Trust and Distrust : New Relationships and Realities >>.
Academy of Management Review, 123 (3), 438-458.
LINES, Rune, Marcus SELART, Bjarne ESPEDAL et Svein T. JOHANSEN.
2005. << The Production of Trust During Organizational Change
>>. Journal of Change Management, 5 (2), 221-245.
MAYER, Roger C., James H. DAVIS et F. David SCHOORMAN. 1995.
<< An Integrative Model of Organizational Trust >>. Academy
of Management Journal, 20 (3), 703-734.
COPYRIGHT 2008 Relations
Industrielles Reproduced with permission of the copyright holder. Further reproduction or distribution is prohibited without permission.
Copyright 2008 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights
reserved. Gale Group is a Thomson Corporation Company.
NOTE: All illustrations and photos have been removed from this article.