MICHAEL DEMPSEY - Cranfield University

CHAPTER FOUR: INTRODUCTION TO CASE STUDIES
4.1. EXPLANATION OF CHAPTER
The four case studies in the next four chapters follow a common
framework which needs explanation if the reader is to negotiate them
successfully. This chapter briefly seeks to provide this explanation.
4.2. FRAMEWORK OF CASE STUDIES
Exhibit 2.5 sets out Hales’ (1999) model which sets out an analytical
framework for the analysis of the work of trade union managers. The
basis of the model is explained in Chapter 2 and the researcher, in
employing the model, has to establish the systems and modalities in a
particular organisation before examining managerial actions in each of
the three categories set out in the model. There are, therefore, nine
categories which have to be completed in respect of each union.
Modalities for each union are extrapolated from the discussions of
systems. All of the nine categories are summarised in the diagrams
which follow each case study but the text is divided into the six areas
relating to systems and actions.
Furthermore, Mintzberg (1994) suggests that managers manage in
three ways – by information, through people and by action. Therefore,
when discussing managerial action (following discussions of merger
management) the types of managerial action discussed are divided into
Mintzberg’s categories.
This means that the structure of each case study is as follows:-
• About the union. This is an explanatory background to the
case study
• Interviewees. This lists the interviewees and their position
in the union. The case studies try to guard against overt
identification of the individuals, as far as possible, except
where that is essential to explaining the comments
quoted.
• Trade union managers. This section deals with the data
concerning whether or not the interviewees accept their
managerial roles.
• SYSTEMS
This is the first of the categories of Hales’ (1999)
framework and involves:-
o Systems relating to distribution of resources
o Systems relating to cognitive rules, in particular
cultural issues. Here, use is made of the
Fairbrother (2000) framework in which attempts
are made to establish managers’ perceptions of
75