MICHAEL DEMPSEY - Cranfield University

Chapter 9, and Exhibit 9.10, discuss the issue of relations of managers
with lay activists in terms of the development of the merged unions into
models of relationships adapted from Fairbrother (2000). Most
managers profess to be engaged in one form or another in
‘partnership’, not a concept presented by Fairbrother and one that is
difficult to define. Cornforth (2002:3) says, in a slightly different context,
that there is in the partnership model an assumption ‘that managers
want to do a good job and will act as effective stewards of an
organisation’s resources. As a result senior management and
…representatives on the board are seen as partners….The role of the
board is primarily strategic, to work with management to improve
strategy and add value to top decisions’
Even in the union where managers express most strongly ideals of
partnership, it is clear that conflictual relations can occur and in other
unions this becomes more evident. There must at the very least be a
question about whether there is a general assumption in the case study
unions that managers want to do a good job, something only possible
to ascertain by researching activist groups. Furthermore, a clear
definition of the role of the governing body, the Executive Council, as
being primarily strategic is not easy to arrive at. Such a boundary is
virtually impossible to locate accurately in any of the case study unions.
Hence, the role of trade union managers in such an environment is
substantially one of boundary management. Chapter 9 suggests that
four boundaries are identifiable; conflictual, constitutional, moveable,
staff and policy related/political.
Chapter 2 referred to literature from other areas examining
relationships between managers and those governing (inter alia) public
and voluntary sector organisations. Leat (1988:67), for example,
pointed out how difficult it was in voluntary organisations to distinguish
easily between ‘making policy’ and ‘day to day management’. This
suggests that the problem is not one confined to trade union
management and therefore that experience may be available from
other areas to enable it to be examined more thoroughly.
This study is concerned with trade union managers; no part of it has
involved research amongst other stakeholders. It has not, therefore,
been able to mount an investigation into the power dynamics between
trade union managers and other stakeholders, which would have
involved research amongst other stakeholders. It would be an
interesting area to study, given that it has been possible to establish
some of the boundaries that stakeholders contest. There was an
instance where a manager described from his position an example of
the first face of power (Dahl 1961) where he acquired superior
bargaining resources by obtaining legal advice on where constitutional
boundaries should be drawn. There was an instance noted of the
second dimension (Bachrach and Baratz 1962), where a manager
explained, in relation to a moveable boundary, how he could use
agenda control. In unions where there was perceived to be more
396