MICHAEL DEMPSEY - Cranfield University

Conclusions
Systems for allocation of physical resources were also centrally driven,
even if the decision to move to the former CPSA building did not attract
at least overt criticism when it was taken. Central prescriptions were
made about location of functions and about the extent of open plan
space, which was substantially a space availability, and therefore
financial, decision even if many managers willingly assented to such
layouts because of the effect it would have on working practices.
However, there was no attention to the consequences of different
layouts on the staff already in the building – or of the failure to display
the new union name for months after Vesting Day.
Regionally, different factors were relevant but, certainly in one region,
much more consensual practices were adopted in planning new space
and joint working between partner union staff had been adopted from
the start.
Systems relating to cognitive rules
Within the evidence collected in this project, there is a vivid description
of the cultures of the old unions and the task for the union in
confronting the manifestations of these in setting up the new union.
This assessment is made by someone who was new to the
organisation, having been appointed jointly just before the merger, so it
gives the evidence added credibility. There was a suggestion that, for
those used to deriving authority from the power of the General
Secretary, there were feelings of disempowerment; whereas for those
who came from an organisation where authority derived from authority
systems, often involving lay members, this was not a perception.
However, PCS was in such a state of turmoil, at least until the second
half of 2002 after this research had been completed, that it is not
possible to make any substantive conclusion about its position in terms
of membership participation or leadership predominance. The one thing
that can be said is that the General Secretary does not enjoy the level
of authority enjoyed by the General Secretary of the former CPSA so to
that extent, the union must have moved somewhat towards some form
of potential partnership, if conflict can be minimised. Presently these
are contested areas.
In the meantime, the level of conflict had a significant impact. Staff
sought trust from management; some managers sought to challenge
what was identified at a senior managers’ meeting as a culture of fear.
Managers themselves, however, were working in an environment
which, despite widespread acceptance of the need to manage, did not
necessarily attach value to the practice. One could speculate that
myths and stories were about successes over civil service managers
rather than about successes of PCS managers so that such attitudes
had a relationship with the historic role of trade unionists in confronting
management; some full time officers, used to doing this without too
much central direction, may continue to be sceptical. Some managers
196