MICHAEL DEMPSEY - Cranfield University

In CWU, however, there was more ambivalence. Suggestions were
made that this arose, as in UNISON, from a more individualistic
approach – in this case, it was suggested, as a result of individuals
being in post as a result of election. However, there were also industrial
reasons, rooted in the fact that union members had been resisting team
working in the Post Office for many years, so that, as it was put, the
very concept arouses suspicion.
Looking at the reasons for these attitudes does not produce a clear cut
result. In UNiFI, as in UNISON, some degree of autonomy on the part
of negotiating officers was identified as a ‘meaning’ arising from
cognitive rules. In the case of UNiFI this does not seem to have been
an impediment, at least at first, to the organisation pushing through a
radical programme of project team formation even though it was known
that some staff did not make much of a contribution to it. In UNISON,
similarly, team working in regions was a centrally driven initiative which
was explicitly trying to tackle the phenomenon of negotiating staffs’
perceived autonomy. There was a candid appreciation of the fact that
autonomy was affected, but that there were trades off in terms of staff
experiencing a more concerned form of management. There were
several suggestions that most staff actually liked being managed
because, amongst other things, of the level of support that it
demonstrated. ‘Meanings’ arising from cognitive rules are not, of
course, immutable. They can be re-formulated and re-created over time
as a result of organisational change and development, in cases of
major change initiatives sponsored by senior management.
CWU, is, though, an example of where there seems to be a very clear
link between the ‘meanings’ influencing managerial actions and
managers’ actions in approaching the idea of team working. The
cognitive rules in CWU arise in part from a history of conflictual
experiences with employers and part of that conflict has been related to
supporting members who resist team working. It would not be
surprising, furthermore, if concentrating on their own periodic elections
influenced those organisational members concerned to be wary of
ways of working which involved any form of shared responsibility.
These may therefore contribute to explaining why CWU managers
have been less involved in setting up and working in teams than
managers in some other unions.
Managing action
Rather than focus on managers’ ‘doing’ roles, which are the subject of
this category in Mintzberg’s (1994) typology, this research focussed on
the issue of trade union leadership. The reason for this, as mentioned
earlier, is that senior trade union managers often have to exercise more
‘hands on’ roles, possibly as a result of public and member
expectations. If they delegate, everyone wonders where they are.
Furthermore the literature on trade union governance has hitherto
made little distinction between leadership and management, focussing
368