MICHAEL DEMPSEY - Cranfield University

• Relating their actions in some
way to the strategy of the
union. Code:
vision/direction/priorities
436
also that it was in negotiation, not
management, that one acquired
street cred. So trying to change a
blame, macho or fear culture was
seen as a priority, or standing up to
the manifestations of that, personally
or institutionally.
Managers who recognised the
influence of structure or process
sought to use other processes, for
example IIP, or change things. They
recognised the need to manage
resources effectively or to institute
processes that achieved more
accountability. They held liaison of
staff meetings or tried to improve staff
communication.
Vision is a controversial issue ‘I don’t
believe in visions’. It was suggested
that in one union it was only skin
deep, despite public acceptance of it.
Yet in Unison, there was proposed to
be a move to prepare a vision
statement.
There are increasing efforts to
institute processes and procedures to
set objectives and priorities, based on
measurable targets or SMART
objectives. One drew an analogy with
the democratic process; elected
people had to be accountable to their
electorate so managers should be
accountable to their managers. This
was felt to clarify roles and
responsibilities. Ownership of such a
system was seen as being important.
It was also seen as making it possible
to emphasise the oneness of the
union, particularly in respect of
regions and the centre. Business
plans were instituted in one union,
though one manager thought they
were excessive because by the time
you had done this, the opportunity
may be lost. Such a system enabled
people to say ‘no’ – though, again,
some managers thought that was
rare.