MICHAEL DEMPSEY - Cranfield University

whether there is a match between managerial aspiration, or espoused
theory, and theory in use (Argyris et al 1985). Argyris’s theory asserts
that people are often unaware that their theories in use are not the
same as their espoused theories – and that people are often unaware
of their theories in use. There is enough evidence of scepticism about
trade union managers in this research to make this caveat.
Performance management
Dunlop (1990:13) suggests that performance of ‘labor leaders’ is
measured by the votes of members. This view was expressed in this
research, but only once – a reflection of the different structural
components of American unions compared with British ones. Hannigan
(1998) says that performance appraisal is generally not handled at all
in American trade union organisations and Kelly and Heery (1994) say
that, in 1991, only 16% of UK unions operated a formal system of
performance appraisal. Appraisal is not, of course, a pre-requisite for
performance management but this is a relevant snapshot.
In three of the case study unions there are systems (development
reviews or personal development plans) which, in the hands of some
managers (maybe most managers in some unions), enable there to be
performance related discussions. One manager reported that she had
mounted disciplinary proceedings on the grounds of competence.
Chapter 9, however, draws attention to Exhibit 9.6, which suggests that
conduct and performance management are the most common activities
seen as constraints by trade union managers. The exhibit juxtaposes
those constraints with managers’ experiences leading to the conclusion
that management remained a problematic concept, discussed above.
Chapter 9 speculates on the connections between personal
unwillingness to manage performance or conduct and the fact that
systems are sometimes treated as external to them – merely
organisational incidents. These ideas are described in diagrammatic
terms in Exhibit 10.1. Whilst speculative, they go some way to offering
an explanation of why it is that some trade union managers who may
be committed to the ideas of thoughtful people management often find
difficulty with one of the principal components of any model of
managing people.
Staff Development
Kelly and Heery (1994:62) say that few unions develop a strategic
approach to training in which there is an attempt to specify the
objectives of training policy and identify training. As Chapter 9 reports,
this research has in most cases been able to examine systems rather
than practice and systems exist in three of the four case study unions.
In two of them, UNiFI and UNISON, these are translated into training
plans of one form or another, supporting in both unions (though in
UNISON not throughout the organisation) their Investors’ in People
strategies.
390