Mottistone Gardeners sacked without warning !

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.

.

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).
.

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!

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.

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. 😱

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

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!!

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🤔

Lathyrus Once again ...Exactly!

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.

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.

@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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

It's much more than power v responsibility.

Yup!

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

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.

“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.

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

typos

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

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?

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

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!