MICHAEL DEMPSEY - Cranfield University

The negative words and phrases are, however, important because they
suggest that there may be a mis-match, on occasion, between
respondents’ visions of their own management or of corporate
approaches to management and what was actually delivered – as also
observed, sometimes, by lower level managers. So the fact that
expressed principles and espoused approaches to people
management had some relationship to each other may need to be
regarded with a little caution.
Performance management
The evidence therefore presents a prima facie case that trade union
managers might be expected to give attention to people management
issues. In the case of performance management, however, undertaking
people management responsibilities brings them up against some
potential problems. Table 9.6 indicates that the most common areas of
management where managers perceived constraints to exist on their
management roles were conduct and performance management. So
one would expect that this would be an area where people
management might be less developed.
In three of the unions there are formal systems which might involve
performance discussion. In PCS and UNISON the systems are called
development reviews; in UNiFI they are called personal development
plans. In UNiFI, PDPs are a component of the union’s IIP strategy and
are therefore built explicitly around a process whereby staff link their
own objectives to the union’s objectives. In UNISON, development
reviews are now intended to be linked to the union’s objectives and
priorities and, through them, to any sectional or regional business
plans, intended to contain more detailed targets.
Nevertheless, it has not been difficult to find reservations about aspects
of these schemes and about performance management generally, in
either a broad or narrow sense. In PCS there is evidence of staff
nervousness and managerial ambivalence – one manager thought it
was almost subversive for her to consider performance during the
interviews. Another implies lack of commitment from the top and, as we
know, conflict at the top had had a consequence for the development of
management and the progress of the union through the phases of
merger. In UNiFI the scheme may well work from a developmental
point of view but there are doubts about whether it does from a
performance point of view. UNISON managers do seem to be more
positive but even here there is a suggestion that it is still work in
progress.
In CWU there are no systems of performance management, though
one manager indicated that in his department he did operate a form of
appraisal. Such a scheme is an aspiration of the present General
Secretary, though he does recognise that this is the subject of tension.
This is consistent with the slow progress of the union through the
phases of merger.
364