Mottistone Gardeners sacked without warning !

Lathyrus3 - I didn't intend to post again on this thread but I can't let your last comment go. All the information you have given here about this subject (including almost word for word about the previous gardener) is to be found in the Daily Mail Of course these articles do not include all communications! - do you mean 'no record' as in not in the press? If volunteers refuse to meet, having previously refused training required for insurance and having gone public to visitors and on social media with criticism of a new member of staff I don't think an organisation has much option but to 'pause' their work. I write a someone with a long career managing staff and volunteers and of being a volunteer myself (none of this with NT) and also having experience of mediation.

I know from your other posts that you do not live locally (I do) and I have no idea why you seem to be so sure that managers are at fault here but I see, again from your other posts, that you are not happy with how you see the direction of the National Trust and wonder if that helped shape your opinions and expectations?

One of the sad aspects of the situation here is the eagerness to assume the issue is 'political' when it is not and that can be seen in some of the posts here and in the interest by some sections of the press.
As I said before I think we can agree that it is a loss to both the organisation and to the volunteers themselves that they are not now involved.

Lathyrus Once again ...Exactly!

Madgran77

Having experienced malicious claims towards staff (including from a volunteer on one occasion) and myself and had to manage those I absolutely agree it isnt fair to blame the manager! I wasn't blamed but it was stressful and difficult and took time, care and some hard messages being given! . Clear communication; everything followed up in written records; an opportunity for ALL to be heard and to feel heard (the malicious claimant insisted they were not heard but written evidence proved otherwise so it was in the end their choice to not feel it!) meant that a debacle did not ensue! In managing these events I made a couple of errors which once I realised I took responsibility for and addressed.

I'm not trying to sell myself or anyone else here as a saintly "perfect" leader/ manager(no-one is, including me); just outlining what clearly hasn't happened in this case because if it had then this debacle would not have ended up in the press in the way it has!!

Exactly. Anyone who has been in management has had to deal with conflict, impossible staff and volunteers and malicious dealings.

What you do is follow the due process, with everything explicitly recorded and verified. It’s very trying and time wasting but it’s part of the job. What you were appointed to do and paid to do.

What you don’t do as a manager is send an email out ofthe blue group of volunteers stating that “some” of them have been guilty of unspecified instances of undesirable behaviour and therefore the whole group has s dismissed and then refuse to discuss anything with them.

There’s no question that this is what was done since it’s there in black and white in the communications sent. Unlike vague unverified claims of meetings they were offered that they refused to attend. Curiously nothing on record about any offer of any such meeting🤔

Having experienced malicious claims towards staff (including from a volunteer on one occasion) and myself and had to manage those I absolutely agree it isnt fair to blame the manager! I wasn't blamed but it was stressful and difficult and took time, care and some hard messages being given! . Clear communication; everything followed up in written records; an opportunity for ALL to be heard and to feel heard (the malicious claimant insisted they were not heard but written evidence proved otherwise so it was in the end their choice to not feel it!) meant that a debacle did not ensue! In managing these events I made a couple of errors which once I realised I took responsibility for and addressed.

I'm not trying to sell myself or anyone else here as a saintly "perfect" leader/ manager(no-one is, including me); just outlining what clearly hasn't happened in this case because if it had then this debacle would not have ended up in the press in the way it has!!

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. 😱

Exactly

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. 😱

Madgran77

*worriedwell Sometimes people are beyond managing and dismissing them is the only option. What do you expect a manager to do if someone refuses to follow direction? There can be bad managers but there can also be employees or volunteers who refuse to be managed.*

I agree. But there are ways to avoid the type of claims being made about the dismissal when it happens thus avoiding this press debacle etc

And like Notspaghetti I say that as someone who had managed both staff and volunteers. I also agree with NS that volunteers are hard to manage but it IS possible to do it without this debacle!

You can be a perfect manager and people can make claims. Maybe these claims are genuine maybe there are malicious maybe one side has an unfair view. One thing is true and that is some people are impossible to manage and blaming the manager for that is unfair.

worriedwell Sometimes people are beyond managing and dismissing them is the only option. What do you expect a manager to do if someone refuses to follow direction? There can be bad managers but there can also be employees or volunteers who refuse to be managed.

I agree. But there are ways to avoid the type of claims being made about the dismissal when it happens thus avoiding this press debacle etc

And like Notspaghetti I say that as someone who had managed both staff and volunteers. I also agree with NS that volunteers are hard to manage but it IS possible to do it without this debacle!

.

Cancelled our NT membership some years ago when they sacked multiple volunteers who refused to wear a pink bow.
I will not support any Charity that becomes political (sadly, this also included the RNLI).
.

Lathyrus3

There is lots of information on good management and there are lots of skilled managers who do manage change and bring people along with them.

The previous head gardener was one of those and the volunteers were immensely supportive of all the changes he introduced.

And there are managers who create hostility, are autocratic and dismissive, who think their role is to dictate and who are frightened of employees and volunteers who may be more competent and have greater expertise than themselves.

The climate they have created then leads to two alternatives, they must leave or the people they have failed to manage must leave. If this group were employees they would take the Trust to a tribunal.

As volunteers they cannot. Which is why the Trust has been able to act in such a high handed manner.

So it's only managers who can be antagonistic, employees and volunteers are not being difficult they are just the innocent victims? There are good and bad managers just like there are good and bad members of staff. It is really narrow minded to think faults can only be on one side.

You seem to know exactly what has happened, most of us just know the story from one side.

If I wasn't wanting things to change I think I would be very hard to manage - and could easily see myself in a radical group threatening to leave... but I hope I could negotiate sensibly and work with new management "must dos" to a more satisfactory outcome.
I don't know who spoke for the Friday group but some spokespeople are not negotiators.

I say this as someone who has managed paid staff and volunteers.
I think I was a fair manager but managing volunteers is way harder!

There is lots of information on good management and there are lots of skilled managers who do manage change and bring people along with them.

The previous head gardener was one of those and the volunteers were immensely supportive of all the changes he introduced.

And there are managers who create hostility, are autocratic and dismissive, who think their role is to dictate and who are frightened of employees and volunteers who may be more competent and have greater expertise than themselves.

The climate they have created then leads to two alternatives, they must leave or the people they have failed to manage must leave. If this group were employees they would take the Trust to a tribunal.

As volunteers they cannot. Which is why the Trust has been able to act in such a high handed manner.

Lathyrus3

Yes it happens. And it the role of the manager is to manage that.

That’s what they’re paid to do and if they haven’t got the skills to do it then it’s manager that needs to go, because clearly they are not up to the job.

Just plain bad management. That’s all it comes down to.

Sometimes people are beyond managing and dismissing them is the only option. What do you expect a manager to do if someone refuses to follow direction? There can be bad managers but there can also be employees or volunteers who refuse to be managed.

Yes it happens. And it the role of the manager is to manage that.

That’s what they’re paid to do and if they haven’t got the skills to do it then it’s manager that needs to go, because clearly they are not up to the job.

Just plain bad management. That’s all it comes down to.

If it was true that it was the “Friday group” involved it is pretty classic, the previous head gardener had allowed or instructed them to workin a certain way. The new head gardener wanted things to be done differently, new managers always have this siuation, who rules the garden the Friday group or the head gardener

...And the acceptance that change is necessary.

Nacky

Madgran77 - you mentioned earlier about change and there has indeed been unexpected change at Mottistone. The Head Gardener died suddenly last year having worked there for 30 years. Some volunteers then took to social media to challenge decisions made by the new gardener and later went to the press having declined a meeting to discuss their concerns. I can understand the views of people here who have just read what has been in the media but that is far from the whole story. I don't intend to post further on this as I have made my points as a local person who knows some of the people involved.

That is certainly different to what has been reported in the press. And I have said that I think neither group has painted themselves in glory with their behaviours. However even within that context I think the management of the issue can be at least queried. How were those decisions communicated before being implemented? How did it get to such poor relationships that attendance at a meeting was refused and social media came into the equation?

I don't expect answers to those questions or others I could ask, obviously. But I do think that such a breakdown in relationships and communication brings the management of change into question.

Madgran77 - you mentioned earlier about change and there has indeed been unexpected change at Mottistone. The Head Gardener died suddenly last year having worked there for 30 years. Some volunteers then took to social media to challenge decisions made by the new gardener and later went to the press having declined a meeting to discuss their concerns. I can understand the views of people here who have just read what has been in the media but that is far from the whole story. I don't intend to post further on this as I have made my points as a local person who knows some of the people involved.

No idea why the Mottistone 'Friday Group' of volunteers did not take part in the required and routine training (which all staff and volunteers sign up to do) nor why they decided not to take part in a meeting offered some months ago to discuss their concerns.

I have no idea either. But clearly something in the management of it all created that situation!

No idea why the Mottistone 'Friday Group' of volunteers did not take part in the required and routine training (which all staff and volunteers sign up to do) nor why they decided not to take part in a meeting offered some months ago to discuss their concerns.

Many years ago I was running a one day course on Assertiveness to a mixed group of people. One of the attendees was in her Mid 80s and she had been told by the company she worked for, that she would lose her job if she didn’t attend. I asked her what she did and she answered she was a washer-up and sometimes made the tea.

She told me she didn’t even know what assertiveness was, but she was desperate not to lose her job, as she lived alone and met few people.

I assured her I would support her throughout the day and she would get her Certificate of Attendance.

At lunchtime the class all decided to go to the local pub for lunch. She got out her box of homemade sandwiches and told us all to go. The class invited her along and she was treated to lunch, she said she hadn’t been in a pub in years.

She left with her certificate and her job in tact. 👍

But apparently not a requirement for management to provide that training in an accessible and relevant form.

Training is the responsibility of management and NT management failed utterly to provide correct training for its volunteers.

That may have been inept management or a deliberate ploy.

Either way the NT was at fault. Which is why it refused to hold any discussion with volunteers or with its members.

As indeed it refuses to hold discussion on any number f concerns expressed in recent years.

A very model of poor management and trusteeship.

That goes for both sides. Some volunteers seem to think they are in charge, some get taken advantage of. None of us know enough about this to judge. If the NT have good reason with evidence of why they needed to do this they can't come online and share it so we only hear one side. We don't know the whole story

Ofcourse it goes for both sides. However if you end up with a group of long serving dedicated volunteers refusing to oblige; resigning; complaining to the press then it is patently obvious that the issue of change; why its needed etc has been poorly managed.

I'm not saying the volunteers have behaved impeccably etc. I'm not saying they are necessarily right in their views/behaviours! I'm saying that to have ended up with them in the press and the NT adding additional "criteria" after the publicity makes it patently clear it was poorly managed ...and that is on the NT!

In reply to Lathyrus3 I think we can agree that it is very sad that a group of committed and talented people are no longer volunteering. If you are involved with the NT you will be aware that it is a requirement for volunteers to keep up to date with training (as is usual and needed for insurance purposes).

Lathyrus
Some volunteers are highly resistant to changes. Any changes!

I think most people can make a sound judgement on that too.