Mottistone Gardeners sacked without warning !

Lathyrus3

Have you seen them? Then your criticism of volunteers is hardly fair either 🤔

NT can produce all the evidence to exonerate themselves if it’s there.

But they won’t - or can’t.

You know, the letters offering training, the letters asking why the training was not attended, the letters with specific instances of unacceptable behaviour, the letters offering a meeting to discuss the issues ( that is said the volunteers turned down) Lots of evidence that the National Trust has managed the situation well and fulfilled its self stated standards of respect for all. I’m sure the volunteers would waive any confidentiality issues that might be raised.

Then we’d all know who was responsible for this debacle wouldnt we?

There are different styles of management. The National Trust and it’s supporters are obviously happy with the style they have chosen. It wouldn’t be one I was happy with as volunteer, employee or manager. It seems to be one that many, many of its former supporters are concerned about.

Volunteers can’t go to tribunal but we may yet see this case in court and then all will be clear.

I haven't criticised the volunteers, I don't know them. I have said there are cases where people can't be managed and that isn't automatically the managers fault.

Good example of how one side can misrepresent the other.

Issuing letters would be inappropriate due to privacy issues. Let the volunteers do their subject access request and then produce it all, their information so they can publish it.

I take it you haven't seen all the information
Prejudging is pointless. Personally having been subjected to appalling treatment from a NT volunteer I would be happy if they are managing volunteers more strictly.

Lathyrus You know, the letters offering training, the letters asking why the training was not attended, the letters with specific instances of unacceptable behaviour, the letters offering a meeting to discuss the issues ( that is said the volunteers turned down) Lots of evidence that the National Trust has managed the situation well and fulfilled its self stated standards of respect for all. I’m sure the volunteers would waive any confidentiality issues that might be raised.

Exactly. All good leadership practice.

"Respect for ALL* Hmm!

theworriedwell Have you seen all correspondence and minutes of any meetings? If you haven't you can't know all the details so your criticism of the management is hardly fair

No I haven't obviously! But throughout this discussion I have been clear that from what we have seen and what IS in the public arena, there are very clear aspects of poor leadership and management practice which has exacerbated a potentially difficult situation.

I have also been clear that I suspect from what is in the public domain that there has been difficult behaviour from long serving volunteers who don't like change! Which makes the importance of managing the change well even greater.

The link shared of the NT emails etc is absolute clear evidence of poor practice - especially in the light of the claims made about the volunteers behaviour. To a good manager/leader, such behaviours should have highlighted the even greater need for both transparent and open leadership to avoid the debacle the NT has ended up with.

Have you seen them? Then your criticism of volunteers is hardly fair either 🤔

NT can produce all the evidence to exonerate themselves if it’s there.

But they won’t - or can’t.

You know, the letters offering training, the letters asking why the training was not attended, the letters with specific instances of unacceptable behaviour, the letters offering a meeting to discuss the issues ( that is said the volunteers turned down) Lots of evidence that the National Trust has managed the situation well and fulfilled its self stated standards of respect for all. I’m sure the volunteers would waive any confidentiality issues that might be raised.

Then we’d all know who was responsible for this debacle wouldnt we?

There are different styles of management. The National Trust and it’s supporters are obviously happy with the style they have chosen. It wouldn’t be one I was happy with as volunteer, employee or manager. It seems to be one that many, many of its former supporters are concerned about.

Volunteers can’t go to tribunal but we may yet see this case in court and then all will be clear.

Madgran77

Interesting to read!

Yes it has been handled badly by the NT .... the emails are inflammatory in tone and comment because communication is being kept to a minimum. Frankly it is ridiculous and a guaranteed red flag to a bull to announce, by email, a "pausing" and tell volunteers not to attend suddenly and arbitrarily! And presumably if these volunteers have been doing as described later on by NT management then it is downright stupid of management to do the "red rag" model thus inevitably winding up an apparently "difficult" group of volunteers immediately! How ridiculous is that.

Which just brings me back to this has has been caused by very poor management of change with key people (in this case long serving volunteers). 🙄

Nowhere that I can see is a meeting offered (should have been early on in my view)

Have you seen all correspondence and minutes of any meetings? If you haven't you can't know all the details so your criticism of the management is hardly fair.

Why don't they just do a subject access request and then they can see what is on record about them.

Lathyrus3

How about the right to defend unsubstantiated accusations that impugn your character and are placed on record.

Can we agree on that?

And given that the organisation that has made the accusations refuses any discussion of their allegations, n face or written, what steps do you think should be taken to clear their reputations?

Where are they on record?

Interesting to read!

Yes it has been handled badly by the NT .... the emails are inflammatory in tone and comment because communication is being kept to a minimum. Frankly it is ridiculous and a guaranteed red flag to a bull to announce, by email, a "pausing" and tell volunteers not to attend suddenly and arbitrarily! And presumably if these volunteers have been doing as described later on by NT management then it is downright stupid of management to do the "red rag" model thus inevitably winding up an apparently "difficult" group of volunteers immediately! How ridiculous is that.

Which just brings me back to this has has been caused by very poor management of change with key people (in this case long serving volunteers). 🙄

Nowhere that I can see is a meeting offered (should have been early on in my view)

I’ve read the summary of what has happened now, including the letters from the National Trust, which were shared by one of the volunteers, and what came across to me was that there were a small number of volunteers trying to rule the roost, and disagreement between the volunteers as well as with the new manager and others. Mottistone has not dispensed with the services of all volunteers, just this group. I agree it’s not been handled at all well by the National Trust, but I do think from reading the letters that the volunteers have played a big part in it escalating as it has.
www.yahoo.com/news/articles/national-trust-gardeners-forced-clash-171512205.html

NotSpaghetti

It was the volunteers who went to the media.
They rejected a meeting.

My information is that volunteers have never been offered a meeting to discuss the allegations in the emails sent to them.

They have more than once requested meetings both as a group and as individuals and have been refused.

A final email from the Trust states categorically that there will be no discussion or further communication.

I think you are wrong to post that the volunteers have refused a meeting to discuss the allegations against them, but if you can show me that they did I will retract. Otherwise I think perhaps you have taken the your information from another poster?

It would be interesting to know what got them to the point where they rejected a meeting ...which brings me back to how things were managed up to that point!

It was the volunteers who went to the media.
They rejected a meeting.

How about the right to defend unsubstantiated accusations that impugn your character and are placed on record.

Can we agree on that?

And given that the organisation that has made the accusations refuses any discussion of their allegations, n face or written, what steps do you think should be taken to clear their reputations?

I don't agree your right to confidentiality ends when a job does. We arent going to agree on that.

unjustified things they were accused of on official record at a National organisation

typos

“It s unprofessional to engage… with the media “

Yes * worruedwell* I agree that while they were actively involved with the NT, it would have been wrong to disclose internal affairs to the media.

But once the Trust had informed them that they were no longer volunteers and that the Trust would have nothing more to do with them, that duty was ended.

The Trust cannot have it both ways. No longer part of the organisation but bound by all the rules.

Given the unproven character assassination and accusations of the dismissal letter ( none of which the Trust has been able to verify through specific examples)) I think they were right to protest. Very few of us would meekly submit to having the njustified things they were accused on off cal record a a Bational organisation.

To me *Notspaghetti” your manager was a really good example of taking responsibility in that she accepted it was her responsibility to make her directions work and employed a strategy for making that happen.

A manager who was more concerned with her power and who saw management as domination would have said, “Just do it! Just do it!” usually in a rather hectoring tone ( I have had that experience over something that was simply not possible to carry out involving fitting chairs into a space)

I think I’d say a manager has authority to direct, which is a facet of the role, but that power is how a person behaves towards others.

Myself, I’ve always been at ease with managing anyone more experienced and talented than myself and haven’t felt the need to belittle or domineer, in an attempt to exercise power.

Lathyrus3

I don’t think I’ve said that the volunteers haven’t been at fault at all,

What I have said is that the whole situation has been very badly managed from start to finish.

It is true that I believe someone who has been appointed to and is paid to manage bears the greater responsibility for how a situation is managed. That is their job.

I also don’t believe that volunteers should be badly managed because they are volunteers and have no legal redress. I think that good practice should apply to all who a manager is responsible for.

If the NT has written records of meetings and training offered and declined, it would not be breaching confidentiality to disclose that. No individuals need be named, only the relevant documentation. If records were not kept that is just another factor in the poor management.

Bringing up the Daily Mail is a tactic often used by those whose arguments are weak. For the record I never read it. Like Nacky my information comes from local sources.

There are different personal views on management. In my experience there are broadly two kinds.
Those who say - I am the manager. I hold power
and those who say - I am the manager. I hold responsibility.

As it is a small group of known people it is confidential. It is also really unprofessional to engage in I said he said in the media

It's much more than power v responsibility.

Yup!

Lathyrus3 I think there are more than two kinds of managers.

My very best manager had responsibility, a duty of care, a strong direction, the ability to change/compromise and also the power to say no.
She might say to me. I think you are completely wrong about x y z but if you do it my way for (say) 4 months I am prepared to look again at your way if you are still unhappy.
She would quietly write the 4 month date in her diary and then schedule a meeting to see what you thought.
Ultimately she would have pulled rank (have the power) but be prepared to be wrong.

It's much more than power v responsibility.

theworriedwell

NanKate

Talking of pronouns. A respected schoolteacher who refused to call pupils by their pronouns has lost his job and I believe has been sent to prison! It is a total disgrace.

Sent to prison? What was he charged with?

Denouced I presume.

I don’t think I’ve said that the volunteers haven’t been at fault at all,

What I have said is that the whole situation has been very badly managed from start to finish.

It is true that I believe someone who has been appointed to and is paid to manage bears the greater responsibility for how a situation is managed. That is their job.

I also don’t believe that volunteers should be badly managed because they are volunteers and have no legal redress. I think that good practice should apply to all who a manager is responsible for.

If the NT has written records of meetings and training offered and declined, it would not be breaching confidentiality to disclose that. No individuals need be named, only the relevant documentation. If records were not kept that is just another factor in the poor management.

Bringing up the Daily Mail is a tactic often used by those whose arguments are weak. For the record I never read it. Like Nacky my information comes from local sources.

There are different personal views on management. In my experience there are broadly two kinds.
Those who say - I am the manager. I hold power
and those who say - I am the manager. I hold responsibility.

I don't understand why you can't see that the volunteers might be at fault at all, Lathyrus3.

The trust may not have been perfect (probably) but the volunteers ftom this one group obviously have a ringleader of sorts who is very busy with the press!

I don't see why this is a political issue at all... a policy issue, yes.

@Lathyrus3. What you don't do as a manager is breech confidentiality by arguing your case in the press which malicious complainants are all too happy to do. That's why these stories are always so one sided.

Lathyrus3

And if someone is truly impossible to manage, there are due processes to manage that. None of which have been followed.

Whatever you’re personal experience of management, there really isn’t one thing that the NT has managed well in this case. Not the volunteers, not conflict, not the dismissals, not the subsequent publicity.

A disaster from start to finish. 😱

Not necessarily for volunteers. Not the same situation for staff with a contract.