MICHAEL DEMPSEY - Cranfield University

organisational members waited to see what sort of organisation would
finally emerge.
A significant contributory factor to these characteristics was the failure
of management to take pro-active steps to manage the merger, owing
to the failure of senior managers from different traditions to agree on
any action to be taken. There was significant experience of merger
management on the part of one of the merging unions but no such
experience, and no understanding, of it on the part of the other.
All PCS managers, however, accepted managerial roles. There is
evidence that in one of the old unions, managerial responsibilities were
delegated to specialists but it is also clear that in the merger
management process that created PTC, this was tackled. In the other
union, managers were constrained in their roles by what was described
as a ‘culture of fear’ – inhibiting encouragement, support and trust.
Some managers speculated that acceptance of managerial roles was
not unanimous, though this did not square with this research.
Nevertheless, although management structures were in place and the
union generally used the language of management, managers did not
always feel confident in their roles. The role was undervalued and
unlikely to contribute to internal recognition. To this extent, managers
undertaking their managerial roles would be likely to feel somewhat
isolated, particularly in the absence of any external guidance as to how
to behave. Nevertheless, some management training is now provided
which is likely to some extent to alleviate these concerns amongst
those who attend.
PCS is unusual in that the thrust to develop management – not just
merger management but the management of the structure - arose from
the efforts of one of the partner unions which was not able to make
headway because of the resistance of the other partner. So the
expertise existed within the union – it was not allowed to be deployed.
Thus, the development of the managerial role is related to institutional
constraints arising from the failure of the union to progress to
psychological merger.
UNiFI
As indicated earlier, UNiFI had reached a high level of integration.
Thus, it is not surprising to find that managers accepted the role, even
if some of them were not entirely convinced that every other manager
did so. The area of surprise is in the lack of management training
provided for UNiFI managers, particularly since several of the partner
unions had recognised the value of appropriate training during the
merger process. This may be a factor of management, to some extent,
taking its eye off the ball as a result of protracted discussions on
possible merger whilst experiencing cash problems, something that
may also have been a factor in a more critical IIP assessment in 2003.
It is speculated above that the uncertainty caused by this may have
352