Hi

I spent some time working with a MAT (although stepped away now) as a governor, a Trustee and a Member.

I strove hard to go for a MAT wide recognition and facilities agreement. It gave us a much higher (and better) level of person to talk to and enabled us to drive through changes across the MAT rather than at each individual Academy.

However be prepared to put a huge amount of effort into it and you will need to get use to the fact that often in MATs things tend to work a bit slower than in the commercial environment.

In reply to Keith:

Many thanks Keith

I am finding that (in general) both staff and HR are very much ingrained into the way things have always been done, and loath to change. I wonder if I can get your thoughts on the following (happy to take off-line if that is more appropriate -'aharris10@aol.com')

1. I can see how there are benefits in a MAT wide approach, but do you not have a concern that the management side always have the skills to deal with the 'higher (and better) level of rep? Was a lot of additional training required for those representing the MAT?

2. How did you decide which unions to recognise MAT-wide, or did you recognise all those you inherited?

3. Finally, what arguments did you get against the MAT-wide approach, and from whom?

Very much welcome your thoughts

Amanda

In reply to Amanda Harris:

Hi

1) Yes of course. Many MATs are simply the amalgamation of various schools with very different experiences in employee engagement and employee relations. Heads tend to consult/negotiate locally often with staff reps who are of course of incredibly different quality. Local and regional officers tend only to get involved in disciplinary and grievance type situations traditionally where dismissal or serious allegations are present. It does man that stepping to a MAT wide arrangement will take support, coaching and up skilling.

But even though you are dealing more with regional officials I wouldn't be too intimidated. A good Executive Principal supported by the coaching / guidance of a Trustee / Director such as yourself can pick up the skills and experience necessary pretty quickly.

The key however is the mind set of the EP (or whoever leads from the MAT side) as often they are used to getting their own way and don't approach these discussions in a spirit of partnership and compromise. Spending time with the MAT team coaching and guiding them as to style, approach and aims was time well spent.

2) Generally there aren't really that many (and far less than say in many NHS Trusts where you might recognise 15+ staff bodies). We started with a very broad brush (not forgetting that many staff TUPE'ed over to us with recognition in place.

But over time it soon becomes apparent (and actually quite quickly) which TUs actually have a significant presence in your organisation and therefore will turn up to meetings, get involved etc. We found that within 12 months we had 4 who were really interested and the rest largely fell away - they still had individual members but showed no real interested in the bigger picture.

3) MATs in my experience tend to fall into two camps. There are the strategic MATs driven by a common mission, vision and values - often with a very clear management team at the centre many with business experience. And there are the defensive MATs driven together by the fear of being swallowed up by one of the above or in an attempt by a group of Heads to retain some independence but within a MAT structure.

Those in the first (Strategic MATs) - there really are few reasons not to go for MAT wide recognition. Decisions tend to be driven centrally and there is an overriding desire to harmonise and bring together policies, procedures, culture and objectives. Doing it once and doing it well makes sense. Most of the big MAT chains fall into this category.

It is in the second group (Defensive MATs) that you will get far more arguments around this. Heads not fully bought into what being a MAT means will make arguments about retaining the culture of their school, the differences in outlook and performance of others schools in the MAT, the need to retain local recognition to allow the community to see their school hasn't been swallowed up by the big bad MAT, I have also seen recruitment & retention arguments.

So its more about the leadership and where they are - and I mean the wider leadership not just the evangelicals in the centre...

In reply to Keith:

That's extremely helpful, thank you.