MICHAEL DEMPSEY - Cranfield University

union governance was written. This would suggest that, other variables
permitting, trade union managers would be more comfortable on the
right hand of the continuum than on the left.
Exhibit 9.7, in this context, makes interesting reading. It compares
stated trade union principles, discussed above, with key words and
phrases used by trade union managers relating to their interfaces with
people. Those phrases which are positive, which means most of them,
very much reflect styles of management to the right of the continuum.
There may, of course, be other issues at play here. As discussed
below, some trade union officials have, as Kelly and Heery (1994) point
out, enjoyed some degree of operational autonomy and, taking into
account the observation made above that staff expectations are a
variable in a contingency theory of management style, being on the
right of the continuum may be a convenient excuse for exercising, as
one senior manager put it, no management at all. Being on the left of
the continuum, furthermore, may involve, following Ouroussof’s
(1993B) finding, taking a judgmental approach to people who would, in
other circumstances, have been represented as the powerless in
conflict with the powerful.
This discussion lays a foundation for some rhetorical but interesting
questions. When writers on trade unions talk of ‘bureaucracies’, are
they talking about models of organisations managed by trade union
managers where those managers both express such people centred
views about managing their people and, in some cases, are committed
to benchmarking their performances in this area against a national
standard? Of course, there are fine, sensitive, people managers in
bureaucracies but the word, used in the context of writing on trade
union governance, contains, it could be argued, much negative imagery
in the present day. Similarly, when Kelly and Heery (1994:86) report
that there are, amongst negotiating officers, ‘examples of resentment
and resistance to attempts at greater management control’, what
models of management were in the minds of the respondents, and/or
the researchers, when responding on that issue? The questionnaires
which formed the basis for those responses talked of ‘control’ and
‘autonomy’, suggesting that subtlety in contemplating different
managerial models was not in the forefront of the minds of either party.
These are rhetorical questions and this research does not attempt to
answer them. The fact, however, that they can be asked, in the context
of trade union managers in the present day expressing people centred
approaches to their people and, in some cases, contemplating systems
of people management which reflect those approaches, suggests that
significant changes may be observable in trade unions.
One must, however, be wary of accepting managers’ responses at face
value. As Chapter 9 points out, there are examples of poor
management in trade unions, as some of the managerial responses
acknowledge. Research amongst trade union staff would reveal
389