North Yorkshire Moors Railway General Discussion

I think this is another example where you are seeing things through a very theoretical legalistic basis, but entirely devoid of actual emotional understanding or empathy. It is theoretically true that employees have protections against unfair dismissal, but in reality (rather than theory) no employee I have ever met wishes to test the limits of that protection. In any job, you quickly learn the limits of how far you can challenge your management, and at what point you need to just knuckle down and do what you are asked, even if you disagree with it. Over time, as an employee if you are consistently asked to do things you don't believe are correct, eventually some employees will leave and go somewhere more amenable. Others may stay but if so will likely see a drop in performance as they retreat into an attitude of "do the minimum" rather than "do their best". But in either case, they are unlikely to keep raging against management while relying on an uncertain HR process for protection.

By contrast, my experience volunteering, and observing volunteers, is that they are rarely shy about offering an opinion and criticising "management" where they disagree with their actions. In doing so, I don't think I have met anyone who refrains from doing so because they are worried about a theoretical risk that their offer of participating as a volunteer may be refused.

Like many instances where you comment on the relationships and motivations of paid and volunteer staff, I think your worldview is dominated by a theoretical view of how the law works, and is entirely divorced from any understanding of human psychology and what actually motivates people to take a particular course of action.

Tom

 

The original suggestion was that a volunteer manager is more likely to "speak truth unto power" becuse he or she has less to lose. Financially that's true but it discounts the value to the volunteer of being able to continue in that role. A good board would be receptive to observations about the wisdom of their decision whether they come from employed or volunteer managers. However, the imbalance between the job security of an employee manager and a volunteer one may well have a significant impact on the latter's determination to take a stand against decisions they disagree with.

 

I’m sorry no. That’s not what I observe over the last 40years. The volunteer has rarely had an issue taking a stand whereas the employee is often reticent to do so. I have never met a volunteer that worried about the security of their opportunity to volunteer.

Over the same time I have witnessed time and again boards which either do not take into account opposing views or do so in a manner which means it doesn’t look like they do, and that’s just as bad in reality.

 

At least we agree that a good board should be receptive to informed opposing views whether the managers expressing them are employees or volunteers.

 

a volunteer manager can walk away with only emotional damage. Those in employment have to balance what they truly know is right against paying for the mortgage. @pmh_74 is absolutely bang on - as volunteers (and this extends to volunteer directors, NEDs and trustees) it is far easier to be forthright when you don’t have to justify to the wife why your moral crusade means you’re now off to live with the in-laws!

Despite what JB clearly thinks, most people are more concerned with these coal face concerns than what legal protections are afforded to them.

 

Having to live with the in laws only risks becomes reality if the emoployee manager has lost his or her job. There are contractual and legal constraints on that which don't exist for volunteers. What's lightly dismissed as "emotional damage" may be a far more significant influence than suggested.

 

I think you’re right to the extent that standing up for what one believes in is going to be challenging for anyone. But if it is really a case of needing to dig in over a fundamental question of whether a decision is right or wrong, then I’m definitely with @21B.

Some of that is about personal risk, but it’s more importantly about the nature of my commitment. As a volunteer, my commitment is from the heart. As an employee, even as a passionate believer in the cause, my commitment is more mercenary.

In either case, and going back to @pmh_74’s post on propensity to challenge, the existence of the fear factor is a sign that something has gone badly awry in the first place. If a bad decision is being made, it should not be threatening for someone to be able to challenge it in a reasoned way. Partly because, well, it shouldn’t, and partly because a well run organisation would ensure that there was operational input into decisions.

At NYMR, the implication is that there is a culture where challenge is not welcome, and that volunteers are quitting, whether outright or “just” “quiet quitting” by offering less. If that is correct, then that is a major sign of organisational illness.

 

Emotional damage that may well be as severe for the paid employee, who is likely also deeply committed to their job.

 

Again, you are looking at this through a legal prism not reality.

Think of it as crime; this takes place when the rewards (e.g. acquiring a luxury product) outruns the risk (time in jail). So a volunteer can feel comfortable telling those senior where to shove their ideas, whereas someone paid has to consider the wider risks.

If someone has reached this point, the emotional damage is already done whatever their remuneration. It is also highly unlikely that an employee on a heritage railway has the inclination, or financial acumen, to peruse all legal possibilities available to them; many employers have worked on this basis for years.

It’s also worth noting of course that contract law does apply to those without a formal contract, but an understanding of regular expectation…

 

says a lot about the amount of attachment LiC feels his staff have to the organisation they are paid to run…

 

I don't see how you can justifiably jump to that conclusion when what I'm suggesting is that the impact on volunteer managers of standing up for what they believe to be right is comparable to that of their employed colleagues. I'm uncomfortable with where the argument that employed managers are less likely to challenge decisions is leading. The logic is that if board decisions are going to be challenged by those charged with implementing them then boards will have an easier life if they rely on those less likely to do so. If, and I don't accept that it's true, employed managers are more likely to be compliant isn't that an incentive to rely on them rather than voluneers?

 

I'm not sure what you're suggesting but it's indisputable that there is no enforceable right to volunteer. The very essence of volunteering is that there is no contractual relationship even an implied one.

 

The emotional impact may be comparable in the final assessment and that depends on the individual, but as a generalisation I feel it is true to say that volunteers will raise things more readily than employees because the volunteer has no expectation that there will be a “come back”, they do not expect that they will have their offer to volunteer refused and that is the only sanction they might face. An employee a) might face a range of reaction and b) has to be there every working day. It is far far more likely they will keep their head down as a result.

 

You're generalising to all volunteers rather than the original example of a volunteer manager. That's far more likely to involve regular and substantial commitment. It might even be the equivalent of a full time paid role. I've agreed that boards should welcome informed criticism of their decisons. However, if a line is crossed and those decisions are challenged in a way that undermines or frustrates them declining to accept the offer of future volunteering is a simple option. Dismissing such a devastating impact on a volunteer , especially anyone committed enough to take on a management role, as "the only sanction they might face" appears to devalue that volunteer's role.

 

I think the same applies to a volunteer in a management role.

I refute absolutely the suggestion I am devaluing the role of a volunteer, but the psychology is different. As a volunteer I don’t have to think about the immediate impact on my wage packet. For most heritage railway managers who are already not all that well paid, that thought is material.
The important part is “if the line with the board is crossed”. Who draws the line? The perception is that the board has all the power. The reality is subtly different, but the atmosphere around the railway will be very important.

 

Good question! The trite answer is that according to the constitutions of pretty much all heritage railways the board has the power. It certainly has all the responsibility. Part of that should be listening to those with experience, whatever their status, and being ready to adapt as a result. If, having done that, the board is confident that an unpopular decision is still the right one then the line is drawn at managers' willingness to to what is necessary to make it happen.

 

The same applies to giving money. If you want people to give their time and money, you have to either capture their imaginations or (at least to a certain extent) indulge their whims. Whatever inductions are given to new staff and board members need to stress that their position only exists because members and volunteers give their time and money.
Maybe there needs to a new way for volunteers and interested members to interact with the board and managers. AGMs and EGMs are too formal and the open forums, usually held during working hours are mostly paid staff and are too formal as well.
What I would like to suggest is an advisory volunteers council, elected by members who attend the AGM only (or potentially some other way), this council would have the same number of members as there are plc and trust board directors. The council meetings would be chaired by a trust board director and have their own minutes secretary. The council should meet four times a year, two of those meetings should be with the trust board and PLC directors, with those directors that want to attend at the others. This council would have no powers, so no rewrite of the articles would be needed. The meetings would provide feedback to the boards and hopefully provide a fertile ground for the exchange of ideas and information. Ordinary members and volunteers would be allowed to observe these meetings as well. Hopefully this would help break down the them and us attitude that seems to be forming, lead to better understanding of why decisions are being taken and would hopefully allow the moulding of policy in ways that attracts more volunteers and leads to better efficiency.

Sawdust.

 

I agree. What concerns me is how few railways seem to have any formalised structure for listening. Fewer still that have a member centric body with rights to appoint a proportion of the board.

What also bothers me, and here I am not sure I will express the concern in quite the right way, so it make take subsequent explanation, is that we do keep talking about the board relationship with the members. In reality, the day to day relationship which is more important is that between Management and “employees “ (paid or not). I am not sure if the focus on the board to employee relationships doesn’t cloud and confuse the relationship to the managers especially senior managers. If the board is acting as an executive (as sometimes it is on HRs) that’s not good. I also have the strong impression that many board to
Members/volunteers relationship issues are in fact problems caused either by volunteers going over the heads of managers and being allowed to do so, or managers who can’t manage volunteers (maybe that’s the same thing manifested in different ways).

In all this communication is critical, and senior management often doesn’t do nearly enough of it, even though from their position it may feel like they are.

 

This point is critical. I've lost count of the meetings I've attended as employee or trustee, where the conversation has revolved around the failure of a target audience to understand what we're saying, so we talk about how we do more to try to get through. In many cases (and here I'm especially thinking of the church context), the issue is not about how we communicate, but whether the desired audience are actually set to receive in the first place. Which means the challenge is not how to communicate, but how to persuade people to listen.

In one recent such occasion, someone bemoaned the fact that he'd stated "black is black" in a meeting and then, after the meeting, someone had come up to him and said "so what you meant to say is that black is white". He was understandably frustrated and, given the specific subject matter, rightly concerned. But that involved communication between two different organisations (in the railway context, a very rough equivalent might be HRA/HR); within an organisation, I suggest modelling the desired behaviours will go a lot further.

It's commonly asserted that if you flog people long enough, morale improves. In the real world, that's false - and any gain is short term, unsustainable, and the precursor of a fall off later

 

A very interesting and constructive suggestion. I'm not sure whether the balance between formality of the suggested structure and the absence of any powers is right but that's detail. The NYMR is already going some way down that route with finalised arrangements for a Volunteers Forum. What you highlight is how inappropriate traditional incorporated structures ( limited companies/incorporated charities etc.) can be for heritage railways. Supplementing those with a member/volunteer focussed communications facility does have considerable merit and potential benefit.