MICHAEL DEMPSEY - Cranfield University

Proposition 1
Trade union managers accept managerial roles and undertake
managerial activities. Merger was a factor in the case study unions. It
led to organisational change but two of the three factors listed in
proposition 1 were not in themselves the key issues for managers
accepting their roles. There was some support for the view that the
realisation of the size of the new union had some impact on the growth
of managerial consciousness. There are also links between the phase
of merger reached by unions and institutional acceptance of
management and its development within them.
Proposition 2
Trade union managers attached importance to the strategic role of
physical space and physical structure. Where appropriate, in two of the
case study unions, it was important in bringing staff together. But the
first sub-proposition is not supported and the third, whilst forming part
of the strategies of some individual managers, was not the subject of
much corporate support and consequently was patchy in
implementation.
Proposition 3
The experiences of trade union officials in confronting management
during their careers are a factor in management being regarded as a
problematic concept within unions. But conflict is not the only factor; it
seems that the bundle of experiences of trade union officials in
defending members, a belief that management is in some way not a
valuable practice, (something more common in unions in earlier phases
of merger) a working life in trade unions which was characterised by
absences of management – all these things and more have had an
impact. Furthermore, they have an impact not only on managers who
have those experiences directly – they have in many cases created a
culture where these values have become shared.
Proposition 4.1
Trade union principles appear to be a factor in trade union managers
espousing people centred values in relation to the way in which their
people should be managed, though not amongst all managers. No
research has been conducted amongst union staff but in one of the
unions there is evidence that people centred management is not
perceived by staff to be a feature of life in the union; in others there is
also criticism of management. There are, though, other ‘meanings’
influencing people management which inhibit managers becoming
involved in ‘judgmental’ activities such as those relating to the
management of conduct or performance. It is also suggested that the
lack of management training in two, possibly three, of the unions (to
some extent a factor in the level of institutional support for
management) may mean that, if there is justified criticism of people
management, this may be because managers with people centred
values may not know how to translate those into the management of
people.
382