MICHAEL DEMPSEY - Cranfield University

Conclusions
mentioned. But there is no shared view on these issues – merely
evidence of thoughtful reflection on them.
‘Legitimate’ managerial Actions
Stakeholder Management
UNISON managers display a variety of tactics for stakeholder
management involving the lay structure. Some find the idea
problematic in that there is some doubt about whether the activist
structure represents the ordinary members, or whether its actions are
sufficiently open. Different approaches may be necessary in different
environments, where conceptions of partnership working are different.
One manager emphasises the importance of personal, caring,
relationships with lay members; another on the difficulty of defining
political relationships where managers are not elected.
There is, though, little agreement on the precise location of boundaries
and these are not, evidently, adequately set. The most pointed
comment was that lay members do not know the difference between
governance and management and there are numerous examples of
unclear boundaries, practical, personal and political. Although there is a
view that politics will always win out in the end, managers have
developed ways of negotiating the boundaries in individual cases, in
one case agreeing work programmes and managing partnership
working around the achievement of the programme. Boundary
management is clearly a key role of managers in UNISON. In the
absence of clear agreement on a ‘shared zone’, boundaries seem to be
an area of continuous, though not always conflictual, contest.
Modes of Management
UNISON is unusual in that attempts are being made to base corporate
management styles around the ideas of ‘emotional intelligence.’ This
does not necessarily comport a homogeneous style but styles which
are informed by emotional awareness of oneself and others. This is a
recent initiative so it is not yet possible to evaluate it.
However, managers in UNISON tend to describe their styles in terms of
supportive characteristics rather than directive ones – in fact, this was
the subject of particular study at an internal management development
course. Inclusion, delegation, enabling, encouraging are other
descriptions, suggesting that UNISON managers aspire to people
centred styles of management.
These conclusions are now summarised in a way which relates them to
Hales’ (1999) model of management. It seeks to provide explanations
for managerial actions from the systems and modalities which comprise
the environments in which trade union managers work, as discussed
earlier.
344