MICHAEL DEMPSEY - Cranfield University

Kelly and Heery’s (1994) findings placed great stress on the
significance of officers’ values, which they categorised as
managerialist, regulationist or leader (‘resting on a perception of
worker-employer interests as antagonistic’ p. 25). This is a highly
loaded categorisation. A more general encapsulation of trade union
principles (tested by the writers with not altogether encouraging results)
is that of Batstone et al (1977:27) which includes ‘an emphasis on unity
and……the prevention of the fractionalisation of the domestic
organisation (and) some idea of social justice. That is, those within the
collectivity are to be treated both fairly and equally (Brown 1973:133).
This involves, on the one hand, ensuring that members of the
collectivity are not subject to managerial whim……There should be no
discrimination against the less fortunate, while the unbridled pursuit of
self-interest should be minimised.’ (Batstone et al 1977:27)
This definition has been criticised, most notably by Willman (1980) who
regards it as vague and ambiguous and leading to the construction of a
model of leadership behaviour by shop stewards which is difficult to
operationalise. Yet, as a conceptual, rather than an operational,
definition, there is little criticism. Willman says that ‘obviously, trade
union principles have to do with notions of justice and fairness’ (page
41). He also cites a definition by Brown (1973) which includes ‘the
search for equity between members of the constituency.’ (page 41). As
a definition of a value base with which most trade unionists would
identify, it is difficult to believe there would be much disagreement.
If this is right, then it may acquire some relevance when the activities of
those senior officials who manage trade unions are examined. In most
of the literature they are described as ‘union leaders’ without much
discussion of their identity. Batstone et al (1977), building on their
definition above, specify four components of the role:-
(1) ability to play a representative role
(2) attempting to implement union principles
(3) a commitment to such goals
(4) the ability to achieve them.
One can see why Willman (1980) criticised the use of the definition of
‘trade union principles’ in formulating an operational definition of trade
union leader such as this. Furthermore, the analysis undertaken is of
shop stewards; it does not attempt to identify leaders at other levels
than the workplace. Clark and Paton (1999:36) define leadership more
promisingly as ‘influencing other people, in ways that are more or less
acceptable to them, regarding certain core issues that face the group or
organisation’ – leaders consequently are ‘people who are expected to
be, and are seen to be, influential on important matters’. It is certainly
possible to see how this might be operationalised in a trade union
context.
Undy and Martin (1984) describe leaders as preoccupied with
institutional survival. Their discussion of the identity of those leaders is
35