MICHAEL DEMPSEY - Cranfield University

that whichever party is gaining autonomy will welcome merger;
whichever is losing it will be more ambivalent. This proposition involves
complex stakeholder dynamics, the isolation of which would be of
interest in any future trade union mergers.
We have seen that, though unions are organisations responding to
numerous stakeholder groups and that although there are complex
dynamics between activist stakeholders and managerial stakeholders,
normative stakeholder management does not provide an adequate
explanation for the way trade union managers manage in such an
environment. But neither, it is suggested, are the stakeholder dynamics
of a character which would support theories of oligarchy (e.g. Michels
1915). Kelly and Heery’s (1994: 196) characterisation of the traditional
bureaucracy vs rank and file division as being ‘unhelpful’ would seem
to be a wise conclusion, particularly now that trade union managers
have been revealed as actors in the dramas of union life. We have
seen that, in certain circumstances, union managers and activists have
both shared goals and conflicting goals and contend for power and
influence over boundaries, some of which it has been possible to
identify. This describes, it is suggested, polyarchies in which, as James
(1984) found, managers and activists (inter alia) compete for control
over decision-making.
Models of governance
It remains to consider whether Cornforth’s (2002) ‘paradox’ perspective
on governance might help provide more complete explanations of how
managers and activists relate in union governance. Exhibit 2.5 adapts
this perspective to a trade union environment. Using Fairbrother’s
(2000) framework as a basis, it might be possible to place these
models on a continuum as follows:-
Cornforth: Rubber stamp Partnership Co-optation Compliance Democratic
Stakeholder
Fairbrother: Leadership predominance Partnership Membership participation
EXHIBIT 10.2. Models of governance. Adapted from Fairbrother
(2000) and Cornforth (2002)
Discussing this framework in the light of this research:-
Rubber stamp/leadership predominance
In the four case study unions, this was something which managers
resisted, though they were able to identify it in respect of certain of the
old unions. It was suggested by one manager that it was an outdated
notion. Cornforth (2002) says that, under this model, control would
have been ceded to a new managerial class. In trade unions, there is a
new category of manager and managers contend for power; theories of
oligarchy (cf Michels 1915) might suggest that this model was the
398