Managing People and Organisational Change in Australian Organizations

Janice T Jones*
Lecturer, School of Commerce
The Flinders University of South Australia
GPO Box 2100
Adelaide, South Australia 5001
Telephone: +61 8 82012707
Facsimile: +61 8 82012644
Email: janice.jones@flinders.edu.au

Terence Jackson
Centre for Cross Cultural Management Research
EAP European School of Management
12 Merton Street
Oxford OX1
England
Tel. +44 1865 263212
E-mail tjackson@eap.net

School of Commerce Research Paper: 00-16

ISSN: 1441-3906

* Author for correspondence

Managing People and Transition in Australian Organizations*

ABSTRACT
Australia has undergone key economic structural changes over the last 15 years. Against this
background, this article reports the results of empirical research that explores perceptions and
attitudes of Australian managers to managing people and organizations. Results are compared
with the literature on Australian people management. Many of the findings of the study are
consistent with previous studies, including a strong humanistic orientation, first reported
more than 25 years ago. Results also suggest that Australian managers have a relatively low
level of commitment to their organisations. The implication of this finding for the
psychological contract is examined.

*We gratefully acknowledge the help and support of the South Australian branch of the Australian Institute of
Management in data collection

INTRODUCTION

Key political, economic, legislative and structural changes have occurred over the last 15
years in Australia. With the view to exposing the Australian economy to international
competition, successive governments of different political persuasions initiated a series of
macro-and micro-economic reforms including floating the dollar, phasing out tariffs,
waterfront, shipping and air-freight reform, financial deregulation and the gradual freeing up
of the labour market (Edwards OReilly and Schuwwalow 1997). Workplace change, together
with public sector reform and privatisation, were also key elements of the micro-economic
reform agenda (ACIRRT 1999). During this period the so-called Australian settlement has
been transformed by these policy reforms to a new post industrial settlement Australia, in
which traditional manufacturing industries-the old protected smokestack industries-have
been replaced by the so-called elaborately transformed manufactures (ETMs) and service
sector (Burrell 1999).

As a result of profound and often painful structural reforms instigated by the Hawke, Keating
and Howard governments, Australia has become globally competitive, and today
organizations operate in a competitive environment. Australian companies and workers have
been forced to change their approaches to productivity, wages and workplace practices
(Burrell 1999) as the old protectionism, characteristic of Australian industrial policy, gave
way to a more free-market driven approach in tune with the realities of the new global
economy.

In response to competitive pressures Australian managers have attempted to improve

performance levels and at the same time, increase labour flexibility (Boxall 1999).
Legislative changes designed to reduce and diminish the role of institutions that operate in the
labour market, namely unions and industrial tribunals (ACIRRT 1999) have resulted in a
regulatory environment conducive to introducing more efficient labour market practices.
3

In this article we examine perceptions and attitudes of Australian managers toward managing
people and organizations. The main aim of the research is to explore the nature of Australian
management and organizations as they are changing, and to compare these results against
previous literature. This is in order both to assist in future agenda setting and to provide
guidance to managers to enable them to better manage people and organisational change. For
this reason we present our results as a dialogue which interrogates the literature as results are
presented. We believe that in this way we can better integrate our results with prior literature
in this area, and thus develop more meaningful conclusions from this process. In addition,
and in contrast to previous studies, we attempt to capture not only the current situation in
Australian organizations, but also the way managers believe their organizations will develop
in the future. We compare this profile against what managers regard as the ideal situation; or
in other words, the way managers believe their organizations should be developing.

The next section of the paper describes the research method. This is followed by results and
discussion, and includes the development of profiles of both managerial perceptions of their
managerial styles and organizations currently, as well as the way managers perceive them
developing in the future. The article concludes with a discussion of the implications of
change for the management of people and organizations in Australia, as well as suggestions
for further research.
METHOD
Procedure
The design of the study was essentially exploratory in that we set out to capture broadranging information about management and organization using a short questionnaire which
could be replicable in different countries, and would provide comparison with previous
studies. The first part of the questionnaire based predominantly on prior cross-cultural studies
of organisational factors includes items on strategy, structure, decision-making, control,
4

character in terms of ethics, success and change, internal policies, climate, external policies,
management expertise and people orientation (Vertinski Tse Wehrung and Lee 1990;
Hofstede 1994, Reynolds 1986; Laurent 1989). Managers were asked to respond to items on
the basis of their organisation currently, the way it is changing, and how they would like it to
change. They were asked to indicate, using a five-point Likert scale with 1 being not like
this at all and 5 exactly like this.

The second part of the questionnaire comprises a subsection of ten items derived from
motivation theory and informed by cross-cultural studies which suggest that commonalties as
well as differences in managerial motivation exist among different national cultures (England
1986; Hui 1990; Alpander and Carter 1991). The items measure needs for economic and
psychological security, control, self-enhancement, autonomy, independence, belonging,
personal self worth, belonging and personal development. The next sub-section focuses on
the direction of management commitment (commitment towards: self; the group; the
organization; people; results; business objectives regardless of methods; ethical principles;
work; and, relatives). The items draw on aspects of collectivism and individualism (Hofstede
1980, Wagner 1995) as well as aspects of humanism and instrumentalism (Jackson 1999).
The next sub-section looks at principles by which managers operate and make decisions
(locus of control, deontological and teleological decision making, trust or mistrust of human
nature, and status or achievement orientations). Items focus more specifically on cultural
factors drawing widely on the literature and accessing information on perceptions of human
nature (Kluckholn and Strodtbeck 1961) and mirroring McGregors (1960) concept of theory
X and theory Y (see also Evans Hau and Sculli 1989), locus of control (Trompenaars 1993,
after Rotter 1966), utilitarianism and formalism in decision making (Jackson T., 1993), and
ascribed and achieved status (Trompanaars 1993). The final sub-section accesses information
on management practices (reliance on hierarchy, use of rank, levels of participation and
egalitarianism, communicating and providing information, and degree of confrontation) and
5

drawing on such aspects in the literature as respect for hierarchy (Kluckholn and Strodtbeck
1961; Evans Hau and Sculli 1989). Again, managers were asked to respond to items on the
basis of me as a manager, managers generally in my organization, and the type of
manager required for the future of the organization. They were asked to indicate using a
five-point Likert scale with 1 being least this and 5 exactly like this.

Sample
The sampling frame for the survey was derived from the membership of the Australian
Institute of Management (AIM). A postal survey was used to obtain the data in May 1999.
From a mail-out of 493 questionnaires, 93 useable questionnaires were returned, yielding a
response rate of 19 per cent. Of the resulting sample 62.4 per cent of managers classified
themselves as senior managers, 36.6 per cent as middle managers and 1.1 per cent as junior
managers. The average age of the managers in the sample was 44.7 years (standard deviation:
5.57 years), and this fits with the senior profile of this group. Females comprised 20.4 per
cent of the sample. The predominance of males in the sample is consistent with the
predominance of males in the general management population (Affirmative Action Agency,
1999). The majority of respondents (73.1 per cent) were from the private sector, and 9.9 per
cent from foreign companies. Membership in the AIM generally mirrors the characteristics of
the management population in Australia.

According to officials of the AIM, demographics of the sample are sufficiently similar to
overall membership. The percentage of women, public servants and average age
that make up the sample are reflective of overall membership, and while the AIM
database

was

unable

to

provide

confirmation

with

respect

to

the

representativeness of sample levels of management and foreign ownership,

nevertheless officials believe the sample demographics are representative of AIM
membership. Furthermore, the AIM recently conducted a short survey of their
members under 35 years of age. Interestingly, in this study a high number of
respondents (27 percent) classified themselves as senior managers. With todays
flatter management structures, many may consider themselves to be senior
managers, when perhaps a few years ago, the same level of responsibility would
have been deemed to be middle management.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Australian organisational characteristics
Constructs which are robust across responses are used to provide perceptions (current, ideal
and future organization) of general operational and strategic orientation (Table 1). The control
orientation construct comprises a scale of four questionnaire items: very hierarchical, very
centralized, very authoritarian, and many strict rules. The people orientation construct
comprises five items: consults employees, provides equal opportunities for all, clear
policies on employee relations, motivates employees, and has the well being of its people
as a major objective. The results oriented construct comprises five items: oriented towards
the market, clear objectives, very successful, clear policies on client or customer
relations and results oriented. The control orientation construct, people orientation
construct and results orientation constructs were tested for reliability using Cronbachs alpha
7

test for internal consistency. Cronbachs alpha for the scales range from .876 to .558. While
Carmines and Zellar (1979) note that Cronbachs alpha should be greater than 0.80 for
frequently used scales, all three scales are sufficiently reliable for this exploratory study as
the alpha coefficients exceed 0.50 (Soutar, McNeil and Molster 1995). However, they are not
as high as one would ideally hope for and the constructs require verification in future studies
to determine if they are stable.

*******************
Table 1 about here
*******************
Comparisons with previous studies reveal that the operational and strategic trends identified
in the current study are largely consistent with previous research. The primary people focus
continues a long tradition of Australian management research beginning more than a quarter
of a century ago with England (1975) and associates (Whitely and England 1980) and
continuing today (Jenner 1982; Westwood and Posner 1997; Spillane cited in Marshall 1997)
which have consistently concluded that Australian managers have a highly humanistic
orientation, and place major importance on values that reflect a high concern for others.
Westwood and Posner (1997) argue that this leads to concerns for both the well-being of the
workforce and quality of working life. Managers commitment to the human factor ahead of
profit has been noted before as well as their laid-back approach to work. Jenner (1982)
suggests that less than optimal results may be the outcome; however managers in this study
reported that their organisations are results oriented. This finding provides support for recent
research (Kabanoff Jimmieson and Lewis, in press) that concluded that a relatively large
proportion of Australian organisations are measuring organisational performance, in other
words are results oriented.
8

The mean score of 3.05 for control orientation indicates a moderate control orientation. This
result, taken together with the desire expressed by managers for significantly less control, yet
belief that organisations will continue in this direction, arguably, may add to a growing body
of literature suggesting that Australian business continues to be demonstrate a command and
control focus (Karpin 1995; Andersen Consulting cited in Clegg 1999; Kabanoff and Daly in
press). Kabanoff and Daly (in press) concluded that results such as these support criticisms of
Australian business culture, namely that it is too top-down and inflexible in style.

Single item measures are used to provide a profile of operational characteristics of Australian
organizations (Table 1). Table 1 also shows what managers perceive to be the ideal situation,
as well as the direction they believe their organisations are moving in the future.

Australian organizations are bound by government regulations, but are not influenced by
family relationships and do not have strong trade unions. Managers believe less regulatory
and trade union influence is ideal, as is less organisational change, but do not perceive any
change to the current situation in the future. Organisations are characterised by a rapid rate of
change, and organisational management that is somewhat risk adverse, flexible, very ethical
and exhibits a high level of managerial expertise. Organisations have clear and well defined
rules, but there does not appear to be much competition for promotion. Diverse opinions are
encouraged and inter ethnic harmony exists. Mean scores indicate that organisational
management should be more risk taking, flexible and ethical, as well as exhibit a higher level
of managerial expertise. Similarly, managers believe that their organisations should be
characterised by more competition for promotion, more diverse opinions and inter ethnic
harmony. Managers believe that their organisations are moving in this direction in the future.

A number of these results are consistent with previous research. For instance, responses to
items 15 (weak trade unions), 10 (rapid organisational change), 23 and 8 (flexible and ethical
organisational management) support prior studies that have identified declining trade union
influence (ACIRRT 1999; Peetz 1999), organizational change occurring at unprecedented
levels and pace (ACIRRT 1999; Littler Dunford Bramble and Hede 1997) and flexible and
ethical organisational management (England 1975 1978; Jenner 1982; Dowling and Nagel
1986; Westwood and Posner 1997; Milton-Smith 1997). However, managers perception of
their level of managerial expertise in this study seems to be at odds with the results of a
number of recent studies (Karpin 1995; Nelson 1997).

The much publicized and well resourced government sponsored Industry Task Force on
Leadership and Management Skills, drawing on evidence from both the Australian
management community as well as foreign managers, concluded that Australias senior
management group lack significant managerial abilities, including globalization skills
amongst others (Karpin 1995). Moreover, Australian management was 18 th in a ranking of 41
countries. Nelson (1997) also concluded that Australian managers lack basic managerial
skills; in this context basic management referred to planning, staffing, interpersonal and
communication skills. Other deficiencies include human resource management skills.
Inflexible thinking, failure to consult with employees, paternalism, and ignorance of
employee tasks and duties were also cited as shortfalls in the quality of managers (pp. 5759). Caution therefore needs to be taken when interpreting the responses in the present study
as the measure of management expertise/capability may be subject to social desirability
response set. Similarly, the Karpin Report has also been subject to some debate (Kramer
McGraw and Schuler 1997).

10

The nature of management in Australian organisations

Management motivation
Table 2 provides a summary of mean scores for items that motivate managers, their
colleagues, as well as what is required for the future. The high mean scores attached to items
5 (4.61), 4 (4.49) and 6 (4.08), and conversely, low scores attached to 8 (2.46), 9 (3.07) and 1
(3.22), suggest that managers are comparatively more motivated by personal development
opportunities (although they believe their colleagues are less motivated by these
opportunities), autonomy and achievement. They are less motivated by independence, control
and economic security.

************************
Table 2 about here
************************
These motivators are largely consistent with factors that are generally seen as motivating
professionals (Poole 1994; Alpert 1992): providing educational opportunities to enable them
to remain current in their field of expertise and offering challenging projects and freedom to
structure work as they see fit. Hughes and Sheehan (1993) also concluded that Australians
value interesting and challenging work.

Management commitment
Table 2 also provides results for the direction of management commitment. The high mean
scores of 4.67 and 4.02 for items 17 and 14 respectively, and conversely, low scores for items
16 (1.82), 10 (2.25) and 12 (2. 71), 15 (2.74) and 19 (3.26) suggest Australian managers are
comparatively more committed to ethical principles and people, and less committed to

11

business objectives regardless of means, work, self, results and organization. They believe
this of others, and what is also required for the future.

Given that 62.4 per cent of respondents are senior managers, the significant commitment to
ethical principles (and conversely, low score given to condoning all business practices if
objectives are met) should be seen as encouraging. This is particularly so given the role this
level of management plays in inculcating ethical behaviour and corporate governance, and
given the increasingly exacting demands executives are facing from the market to maximise
profits.

As early as the mid-1970s, Australian managers have been noted for their moralistic value
set (England 1975, 1978). Thus the responses to items 16 and 17, and 14 (regarding the wellbeing of the people as the objective of an organization) are consistent with a longstanding
body of research that recognises that Australian managers demonstrate both significant
moralistic (England 1975, 1978; Jenner 1982; Dowling and Nagel 1986; Westwood and
Posner 1997; Milton-Smith 1997) and humanistic orientation (England 1975, 1978;
Westwood and Posner 1997; Spillane cited in Marshall 1997).

Managers indicate a comparatively lower commitment to organization (3.26). This finding

supports the view increasingly espoused by academics and practitioners alike, that partly as a
result of a decade of downsizing, particularly in banks and the public sector, the
psychological contract between employees and employers has been irreversibly broken. As a
result, employees are no longer committed to their organisation, but instead to themselves,
and developing their own curricula vitae and careers (Macken 1999; ACIRRT 1999).

While this attitude is most evident in the so-called Generation X, recent research suggests this
view is widespread. In a recent survey of over 500 senior executives of Australian companies,
12

58 per cent of managerial respondents surveyed report little or no commitment to company

values, 68 per cent of professionals are uncommitted and 66 per cent of employees said they
were either marginally or totally uncommitted to company values (Parker and Matheson
1999). Similarly, another report concluded that, increasingly evidence suggests that
employees are less confident that their personal goals match management objectives
(Clemenger cited in Macken 1999).

Managers in the present study also indicate a relatively low level of commitment to results,
work and relatives. Australian managements commitment to the human factor ahead of profit
has been recognized before (Jenner 1982). This is supported in the current study as managers
indicate that they regard the well-being of its people as the objective of the organisation and
conversely, do not consider the results of the organization as paramount. It is a well held
belief that Australians work to live, not live to work (Robbins Waters-Marsh Cacioppe and
Millett 1994). While Australia has been referred to as the land of the long weekend, others
believe that traditional Australian beliefs [on work] are a healthy combination of the social
and economic needs, and of the need for economic production to be balanced by the social
needs of communities (ACIRRT 1999).

Management principles
Australian managers demonstrate a high internal and low external locus of control; base their
decisions more on teleological considerations and less on deontological considerations; trust
employees; are highly achievement oriented and less status oriented, although they perceive
their peers as more status oriented and less achievement oriented than themselves. Managers
are relatively more achievement orientated and less status conscious. This finding is
consistent with Feathers (1986) research that found that contemporary Australians live in a
competitive environment where business achievement is valued, and organizational systems
reward accomplishment.
13

In organisations today short-term goals for profit and similar measures of performance are
frequently emphasised. Cavanaugh (1990) asserts that judging an activity in terms of its
utility is the dominant criteria in 90 per cent of all business decisions. Thus the finding that
Australian managers in our sample indicate that they base their decisions on probable
outcomes (Table 2, item 23) could be explained by the strong role economics plays in
managerial decision-making: if we assume that a business is in business to make a profit, and
we measure consequences by costs and benefits, it appears logical that the best action is that
which maximises profit.

Management practices
It can be seen from Table 2 that Australian managers place a relatively low level of reliance
on hierarchy and rank, and surprisingly, also are less egalitarian. However, both they and their
colleagues are more communicative, provide information more openly, and are less
confrontational.

The low score given to the use of rank by management in our study (item 29) is perhaps a
reflection of the cultural emphasis on equalitarianism in Australian society. Like mateship,
the cultural emphasis on equalitarianism in Australian society is well established (Encel
1970). Encel (1970: 56) defines the term equality as
one which places a great stress on the enforcement of a high minimum standard of wellbeing, on the outward show of equality and the minimisation of privileges due to formal
rank
Furthermore, as the traditional pyramid shaped organization gives way to new organisational
forms, yesterdays chain of command approach is no longer appropriate. Similarly, the value
attached to participation and democracy by Australian managers in our sample (item 25) is
also consistent with other reported findings (Westwood and Posner 1997), as is the non14

hierarchical work organisation. However, in our study, the low score given to egalitarianism
(item 30) was unexpected, as egalitarianism (and fairness) are regarded as core values within
Australia and Australian workplaces (ACIRRT 1999).

The high scores given by our sample of managers for items 31 and 32 (sharing information
and communication) could be characterised as practices representing employee consultation,
aimed at least in part, at facilitating change management (Kramar and Lake 1997), and fits
with the high level of change which our respondents report as occurring in Australian
organisations (Table 1, item 10). Managers also indicate a relatively low reliance on hierarchy
(Table 2 item 28). In fact, an Australian manager is likely to demonstrates his or her worth
and commitment to the firms goals, and also win respect and praise from their workers by
rolling up his or her sleeves and pitching in on the factory floor in an emergency.
Conversely, a manager who fails to refer a subordinate to a more knowledgeable authority
would be viewed as an egomaniac (Mahoney Trigg Griffin and Pustay 1998).

Limitations
This study was an exploratory study, designed to collect wide-ranging, descriptive,
quantitative data using a questionnaire which is relatively straightforward to complete. The
study has limitations which should be considered when assessing the results. First, while the
sample size is low, it was drawn from the Australian Institute of Management (AIM),
Australia's largest professional association for managers. Importantly, membership in the
AIM generally mirrors the characteristics of the management population in Australia
(Westwood and Posner 1997).

Secondly, single item, quantitative measures were used to provide a profile of operational
characteristics, and management motivation, commitment, principles and practices, and can
only provide indicative results. Nevertheless, many of the results in the present study
15

corroborate both existing and previous work, and in part, may validate our (indicative)
results. It is intended that this exploratory study is seen as a first step in exploring issues
raised in the current study.

IMPLICATIONS FOR THE FUTURE AND FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS

For a considerable portion of the twentieth century, Australian organisations have operated in
a centrally controlled industrial relations environment, protected from foreign competition by
high tariff barriers and benefited from high prices for exported commodities (Kabanoff et al.
in press). As a result, they have enjoyed a comfortable, yet bureaucratically controlled
existence. Drawing on organizational theory (Burns and Stalker 1966; Mintzberg 1979),
Kabanoff et al (in press) suggest that command and control style organisations endure and
thrive in a relatively stable, predictable and undemanding environment. They believe that
Australia may have provided a fertile breeding ground for this type of organization.
Furthermore, they acknowledge that these conditions have ceased and moreover, are not
likely to return in the future. Thus organizations are in the process of adapting to a more open
and competitive marketplace, with changes to organizational structures, policies and practices
(Dunphy and Stace 1990) designed to move organizations away from command and control
to a more performance oriented, flexible system.

Results in the present study suggest Australian organizations are in transition. However,
respondents belief of a continued control orientation raises questions about the efficacy of
changes to organizational structures, policies and practices, reportedly designed to move
organizations away from a command and control approach. Future research should examine
why a significant gap appears to exist between the desire for less control, and the expected
continued level of control in the future; the implications of this continued control orientation
should also be examined (Table 3).
16

************************
Table 3 about here
************************

Research conducted over the past twenty-five years (e.g., England 1975, 1978; Whitely and
England 1980; Jenner 1982; Westwood and Posner 1997; Spillane cited in Marshall 1997)
would provide strong support for managerial perceptions of a continued strong humanistic
orientation in the future. However, previous findings would cast serious doubts on the
validity of managerial beliefs that their organisations will become significantly more results
oriented. Kabanoff et al (in press) noted that at both the individual and organisational level,
Australian managers and their organisations have been relatively less concerned with
traditional business objectives including performance, competitiveness and productivity,
although more recent studies suggest organisations are focussing on results. Spillane (cited in
Marshall 1997) argues that Australian managers value a balance between performance and
humanism, more than they do the bottom line. Furthermore, the desire to maintain this
balance and ensure quality of life may work against profit maximisation. Managerial
responses to the direction of management commitment provide further support for this
proposition. Managers report a higher commitment to ethical principles with lower
commitment to business objectives regardless of means, and a lower commitment to results,
organization and work, believing this to be true for other managers, and importantly, also
required for the future (Table 4).

************************
Table 4 about here
************************

17

Interestingly, managers describe an ideal situation as one in which both a high people and
results orientation exists. However they report that in the future, while both may increase,
they do not believe that both will increase to ideal levels (Table 3). Future research might
attempt to understand why there is this apparent discrepancy-is it because managers are
cynical about their ability to achieve both outcomes simultaneously, particularly as they
believe in the future there will be an ongoing control orientation, although they believe
ideally this should be reduced?

The Australian outlook reflects a healthy balance of the social and economic needs, of the
need for economic production to be balanced by communal social needs (ACIRRT 1999)
Future research should seek to establish to what extent Australia is able to continue with this
balance, given that recent worldwide trends (e.g. globalisation, reduction in tariffs, formation
of trading blocks etc.) have made it an imperative Australian business improve performance.
International trends beyond Australias control may have an overriding influence on
determining the balance of Australian organisational objectives.

In response to competitive pressures many Australian organisations have downsized,

restructured, rightsized and alike in order to cut costs and improve flexibility and
productivity. But many argue that the downside is the negative impact on employees, both
remaining and those made redundant. Moreover, the cumulative effect has been the supposed
breakdown of the psychological contract (Macken 1999; ACIRRT 1999): that is, where
employers guaranteed long term job security, and in return employees offered hard work,
commitment and loyalty. The finding that managers have a relatively low commitment to
their organization in this study, like other recent studies (Parker and Matheson 1999;
Clemenger cited in Macken 1999) raises the question as to whether the psychological
contract between employers and employees has been irreversibly damaged. This is
particularly pertinent in view of respondents indicating a lower loyalty from other managers
18

in their organizations. The significant difference between the response for others on this
item and what is required for the future of the organization indicates that managers believe
that loyalty needs to be improved (Table 4). This could also imply that managers want their
organizations to continue to offer long-term employment, in exchange for hard working,
loyal, committed employees. Yet managers were least committed to economic security as a
motivational factor.

Differences may exist between factors that motivate managers and factors related to
organisational commitment. For example it is possible that a manager may be motivated, but
not committed to the organization. This could arise if managers were focussed on developing
his/her career, but may not necessarily be aligned with satisfying organisational objectives.
An implication of this for organisations is that they need to ensure managerial and
organisational objectives are aligned. An option increasingly explored by larger Australian
organisations is performance based compensation. Future research examining what motivates
Australian managers is clearly needed.

Given changes that may have occurred, namely a shift towards transitional psychological
contracts (Kabanoff et al. in press), characterised as a breakdown of the psychological
contract in which there are no guarantees concerning future employment and no explicit
performance demands (Rousseau and Wade-Benzoni 1994), it is possible that organisations
can no longer expect the level of organisational commitment of the past. Rousseau and WadeBenzoni (1994) argue that transitional contracts are typically characterised by a low level of
trust. However, contemporary management structures and practices such as flatter and
flexible organizations, empowerment, self-managing work teams, together with flexible
employment contracts, require trustworthy and committed employees. The result reported
here may add some weight to the claim of a new transactional psychological contract-one that
exists in todays environment of continual change, whereby instead of guaranteeing job
19

tenure, employees are rewarded for performance (Sparrow 1996). This also fits with the
strong managerial belief indicated in our results, that reward should be based on achievement.
In other words, they may be seeking a move from transitional to transactional psychological
contracts, focusing on monetary exchanges that are shorter in duration but entail well
specified performance standards (Rousseau and Wade-Benzoni 1994).

Kabanoff et al (in press) using data from the AWIRS (1995) concluded that employees in
organisations using transactional (HRM) practices typically had negative attitudes towards
their jobs, reporting feeling less secure and having less trust in management. Further research
on the new psychological contract in todays workplace is an emerging issue and significant
in terms of the ability of organizations to attract and retain, and importantly, motivate
employees.

Future research may deal with the limitations of this study outlined above, for example by
employing qualitative research methods such as interviewing using open-ended questions.
Similarly, by surveying employees drawn from the same workplaces as managerial
respondents, and linking data from the employee surveys to items in the managerial survey, a
means is provided to explore the relationship between managerial perceptions and employee
experience (Harley 1999).

CONCLUSION
It is widely accepted that the future well being of the Australian economy depends largely
upon the global competency of its enterprises, including their ability to efficiently produce
and export both elaborately transformed manufactured goods and services. The Karpin
Report (1995) identified the development of internationally competitive enterprises as the
fundamental means of achieving improved living standards for Australians. The ability to
20

manage issues affecting international business is paramount to Australian managerial and

business success.

This paper has provided a tentative profile of Australian managers and their organizations.
Furthermore, by extending this research to other countries with which Australia does
business, and developing comparable profiles, we can examine both similarities and
differences in attitudes of managers towards managing people and organizations. Such results
would be useful to managers, both in Australia and offshore, where many Australian
companies increasingly do business, attempting to reconcile differences in management
approaches in the international context. They could also aid in the development of
management systems, structures and practices that are consistent with the respective cultural
values and expectations.
REFERENCES

ACIRRT (Australian Centre for Industrial Relations Research and Training) (1999) Australia
at work: Just Managing? Sydney: Prentice Hall
Affirmative Action Agency (1999) Women in Management
[Online].Available:http://www.eeo.gov.au/student/statistics/index.html#management
[1999, November 30]
Alpander, GG and Carter, KD (1991) Strategic multinational intra-company differences in
employee motivation, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol 6 No2 pp 25-32
Alpert, M (1992) The care and feeding of engineers, Fortune, 21 September, pp 86-95
Andersen Consulting (1999) in Clegg, B The very model of the millennium manager The
Australian Financial Review
Boxall, P (1999) Editorial Introduction, Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, Vol 37
No 2 p 1
21

Burns, I and Stalker, GM (1966) The Management of Innovation. Second Edition, London:
Tavistock
Burrell, S (1999) Now, at your service The Sydney Morning Herald October 16 pp 101, 105
Carmines, EG and Zellar, RA (1979) Reliability and Validity Assessment, in JL Sullivan
(ed.) Sage University Paper Series on Quantitative Applications in Social Sciences,
07-017 (Sage Pubns., Beverly Hills and London)
Cavanagh, GH (1990) American Business Values Englewood Cliffs (NJ): Prentice Hall
Dowling, PJ and Nagel, TW (1986) Nationality and work attitudes: a study of Australian and
American business majors Journal of Management Vol 12 No 1 pp 121-128
Drake Executive (1999)Commitment: the potential downside Drake Business Review, Vol
13 No 2 pp 12-15
Dunphy, D and Stace, D (1990) Under New Management: Australian Organizations in
Transition Sydney: McGraw Hill
Edwards, RW OReilly, H and Schuwwalow, P (1997) Global Personnel skills: A Dilemma
for the Karpin committee and Others Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, Vol
35 No 3 pp 80-89
England, GW (1975) The Manager and His Values Cambridge (MA): Ballinger Publishing
Co.
England, GW (1978) Managers and their value systems: a five country comparative study
Columbia Journal of World Business Vol 13 No 2 pp 33-44
England, GW (1986) National work meanings and patterns-constraints on management
action European Management Journal Vol 4 No 3 pp 176-84
Encel, S (1970) Equality and authority London: Tavistock

22

Evans, WA Hau, KC and Sculli, D (1989) A cross-cultural comparison of managerial styles

Journal of Management Development Vol 8 No 3 pp 5-13
Feather, NT (1986) Value systems across cultures: Australia and China International
Journal of Psychology, Vol 21 pp 697-715
Harley, B (1999) The Myth of Empowerment: Work Organisation, Hierarchy and Employee
Autonomy in Contemporary Australian Workplaces Work, Employment & Society,
Vol 13 No 1 pp 41-66
Hofstede, G (1980) Culture's Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related
Values, Newbury Park (CA): Sage

Hofstede, G (1994) The business of international business is culture, International Business

Review Vol 3 No 1 pp 1-14
Hughes, P and Sheehan, B (1993) Business Across Cultures: The Comparison of Some
Business Practices in Thailand and Australia, Asian Review, Institute of Asian
Studies, Chulalongkorn University
Hui, CH (1990) Work attitudes. leadership styles and managerial behaviour in different
cultures in R W Brislin (ed.) Applied Cross-cultural Management London: Sage
Jackson, T (1993) Ethics and the art of intuitive management European Management
Journal, 20th Anniversary edition pp 57-65
Jackson, T (1999) Managing change in South Africa: developing people and organizations,
The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 10(2), 306-26
Jenner, SR (1982) Analysing cultural stereotypes in multinational business: United States
and Australia Journal of Management Studies Vol 19 pp 307-325

Kabanoff, B Jimmieson, NL and Lewis, MJ (in press) Psychological contracts in Australia: A

Fair Go or a Not-So-Happy Transition? in Rousseau, D and Schalk, R. (Eds)
Psychological Contracts in Employment: International Perspectives, Sage
23

Kabanoff, B and Daly, JP (in press) Values Espoused by Australian and US organisations
Applied Psychology: An International Review
Karpin, DS (1995) Enterprising Nation-Renewing Australias Managers to Meet the
Challenges of the Asia-Pacific century, Report of the Industry Task Force on
Leadership and Management Skills, (Karpin Report) Canberra: Australian
Government Publishing Service
Kluckhohn, F and Strodtbeck, FL (1961) Variations in Value Orientations Connecticut:
Greenwood
Kramar, R and Lake, N (1999) Price Waterhouse Cranfield project on international strategic
human resource management. Sydney: Macquarie University in Kramar, R Policies
for managing people in Australia, Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources Vol 37
No 2 pp 24-32
Kramer, R McGraw, P and Schuler, R (1997) Human Resource Management in Australia 3rd
edn Melbourne: Longman
Laurent, A (1989) A cultural view of change in P Evans, Y Doz and A Laurent (eds) Human
Resources Management in International Firms: Change Globalization, Innovation
London: Macmillan
Littler, C Dunford, R Bramble, T and Hede, A (1997) The Dynamics of Downsizing in
Australia and New Zealand Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources Vol 35 No.1 pp
65-79
Macken, D (1999) New workforce elite shifts balance of power, The Australian Financial
Review August 24 pp 1, 14
Mahoney, D Trigg, M Griffin, R and Pustay, M (1998) International Business: A Managerial
Perspective South Melbourne: Longman
McGregor, D (1960) The Human Side of Enterprize New York: McGraw-Hill

24

Milton-Smith, J (1997) Business ethics in Australia and New Zealand, Journal of Business
Ethics, Vol 16 pp 1485-1497
Mintzberg, H (1979) The Structuring of Organisations Englewood Cliffs (NJ): Prentice Hall
Nelson, LG (1997) Managers and Enterprise Bargaining: Some Preliminary Findings Asia
Pacific Journal of Human Resources Vol 35 No 1 pp 53-64
Peetz, D (1999) Nearly the Year of Living Dangerously: In The Emerging Worlds of
Australian Industrial relations Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources Vol 37 No 2
pp 3-23
Parker, W and Matheson, S (1999) Commitment: The Potential Downside, Drake Business
Review, Vol 13 No2, pp12-15
Poole, G (1994) How to manage your nerds Forbes ASAP December pp 132-136
Reynolds, PD (1986) Organizational culture as related to industry, position and performance:
a preliminary report Journal of Management Studies Vol 23 No3 pp 333-45
Robbins, SP Waters-Marsh, R Cacioppe, R and Millett, B (1994) Organizational Behaviour:
Concepts, Controversies and Applications. Australia and New Zealand Sydney:
Prentice Hall
Rotter, JB (1966) General expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement',
Psychological Monographs, Vol. 80 No 1 Whole No 609
Rousseau, DM and Wade-Benzoni, KA (1994) Linking Strategy and human resource
practices: How employees and customer contracts are created Human Resource
Management Vol 33 pp 463-489
Soutar, GN McNeil, M and Molster, C (1995) A Management Perspective on Business
Ethics, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol1 4 pp 603-611
Sparrow, P (1996) Transitions in the psychological contract: Some evidence from the
banking sector Human Resource Management Journal Vol 6 No 4 pp 76-91

25

Spillane cited in Marshall, K (1997) Local bosses best at human touch, Australian
Financial Review 28 November p 59
Trompenaars, F (1993) Riding the Waves of Culture London: Brealey
Vertinski, I Tse, D.K Wehrung, DA and Lee, KH (1990) Organizational design and
management norms: a comparative study of managers' perceptions in the People's
Republic of China, Hong Kong and Canada Journal of Management Vol 16 No 4 pp
853-67
Wagner, JA (1995) Studies of individualism-collectivism: effects on cooperation in groups
Academy of Management Journal Vol 38 No 1 pp 152-172
Westwood, RJ and Posner, BZ (1997) Managerial values across cultures: Australia, Hong
Kong and the United States Asia Pacific Journal of Management Vol 14 pp 31-66
Whitely, W and England, GW (1980) Variability in Common Dimensions of Managerial
Values due to Value Orientation and Country Differences Personnel Psychology
Spring pp 77-89

26

TABLE 1 Australian organizational characteristics: current, ideal and future

Current Ideal Future
Operational and strategic orientation
Control orientation
People orientation
Results orientation

3.05
3.30
3.48

2.51
4.50
4.55

3.12
3.52
3.82

Constraints and influences

24 Bound by government regulations
25 Influenced by family members
15 Strong trade unions

3.37
2.24
1.97

2.73
2.07
1.84

3.40
2.21
1.94

Operationing features
10 Undergoing rapid change
11 Foreign owned

3.77
1.49

3.62
1.47

3.80
1.74

2.87
3.23
4.17
3.43

3.59
4.17
4.78
4.02

3.13
3.42
4.26
3.58

Internal dynamics
27 Much competition for promotion
26 Encourages diversity of opinions
16 Inter-ethnic harmony

2.72
3.15
3.90

3.20
4.31
4.47

2.88
3.23
4.06

Management expertise
19 High level of management expertise and skills

3.34

4.67

3.60

2
23
8
22

Style of organizational management

Risk taking
Very flexible
Very ethical
Has clear and well defined rules of action

Mean scores are indicated for Current (my organization at the moment), Ideal (the way I would like it to be) and
Future (the way it is going). Scores are from 1(not like this at all) to 5 (exactly like this).

27

TABLE 2. Australian management characteristics: self, colleagues and required

Self

Others Required

3.22
3.52
3.37
4.49
4.61

3.79
2.90
3.30
3.78
3.57

2.91
3.58
3.65
4.27
4.61

4.08
3.94
2.46
3.07

3.23
3.37
2.69
3.39

4.20
4.12
2.37
3.16

2.71
3.65
3.26

2.67
2.92
2.96

2.44
3.72
3.36

4.02

3.23

3.94

2.74

3.01

3.14

1.82

2.27

2.08

4.67

3.89

4.57

2.25
3.39

2.58
3.25

2.69
3.18

4.23

3.45

4.23

2.29

2.64

2.28

2.59

2.89

2.71

3.58

3.22

3.67

1.56

2.26

1.65

1.62

2.42

1.76

4.56

3.61

4.46

2.59

3.22

2.70

2.29
3.54

2.91
2.75

2.53
3.50

2.27
4.43
4.09

2.86
3.44
3.27

3.04
4.52
4.10

2.40
4.15

2.68
3.24

2.75
4.66

Management motivation
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Preferring the security of a steady job (Economic Security)

Preferring work to be unpredictable (Managing Uncertainty)
Very ambitious to reach the top (Self Enhancement)
Freedom in job to adopt own approach (Autonomy)
Eager for opportunities to learn and develop (Personal
Development)
Setting self difficult goals (Achievement)
Enjoying, above all else, to work as part of a team (Belonging)
Preferring, above all else, to work alone (Independence)
Preferring, above all else, to direct other people (Control)

Management commitment
12 Depending only on self (to Self)
11 Making sacrifices for the good of the group (to Group)
19 Being completely loyal to the organization, above all other
things (to Organization)
14 Regarding the well-being of its people as the objective of an
organization (to People)
15 Considering the results of the organization as being paramount
(to Results)
16 Condoning all business practices if objectives are met (to
Business Objectives)
17 Believing managers must act completely ethically (to Ethical
Principles)
10 Believing that work is the most important thing in life (to Work)
18 Honouring responsibilities toward relatives (to Relatives)

Management principles
20 Believing that if one is motivated enough anything can be
achieved (Internal Locus of Control)
21 Believing that own achievement is based very much on outside
forces (External Locus of Control)
22 Basing decisions on pre-set principles, rather than outcomes
(deontology)
23 Basing decisions on likely outcomes, not on pre-set principles
(Teleology)
24 Believing that generally employees are not to be trusted
(Mistrust of Human Nature)
26 Believing that reward should be based on status (Status
Orientation)
27 Believing that reward should be based on achievement
(Achievement Orientation)

Management practices
28 Working through the hierarchy at all times (Reliance on
Hierarchy)
29 Keeping personal distance from subordinates (Use of Rank)
25 Having a completely democratic management style
(Participation)
30 Socializing with employees outside work (Egalitarianism)
31 Communicating openly (Communicating Openly)
32 Giving subordinates open access to information (Providing
Open Information)
13 Being confrontational and assertive (Confrontation)
33 A high level of management knowledge and skills
(Management Capability)

Note: Mean scores are for Self (Me, as a manager), Others (Managers generally in my organization), and Required (The type
of manager required for the future of the organization). Score are from 1 (not like this at all) to 5 (just like this).

28

TABLE 3 Australian organizational characteristics-direction of change

Current

Ideal

Future

Operational and strategic orientation

Control orientation
People orientation
Results orientation

3.05
3.30
3.48

<
>
>

~
>
>

Constraints and influences

Bound by government regulations
Influenced by family members
Strong trade unions

3.37
2.24
1.97

<
<
<

~
~
~

Operational features
Undergoing rapid change
Foreign owned

3.77
1.49

<
~

~
>

Style of organizational management

Risk taking
Very flexible
Very ethical
Has clear and well defined rules of action

2.87
3.23
4.17
3.43

>
>
>
>

>
>
>
>

Internal dynamics
Much competition for promotion
Encourages diversity of opinions
Inter-ethnic harmony

2.72
3.15
3.90

>
>
>

>
>
>

Management expertise
High level of management expertise and skills

3.34

>

>

Note. Mean scores are indicated for Current (my organization at the moment). Scores are from 1(not like this at
all) to 5 (exactly like this).
> denotes more like this Ideally(the way I would like it to be) or in the Future (the way it is going).
< denotes less like this Ideally(the way I would like it to be) or in the Future (the way it is going).
~ denotes no change from the current situation

29

TABLE 4 Australian management characteristics-direction of change

Self

Others Required

Management motivation
Economic Security
Managing Uncertainty
Self Enhancement
Autonomy
Personal Development
Achievement
Belonging
Independence
Control

3.22
3.52
3.37
4.49
4.61
4.08
3.94
2.46
3.07

>
<
<
<
<
<
<
>
>

<
>
>
<
~
>
>
<
>

12
11
19
14
15
16
17
10
18

Management commitment
to Self
to Group
to Organization
to People
to Results
to Business Objectives (regardless of means)
to Ethical Principles
to Work
to Relatives

2.71
3.65
3.26
4.02
2.74
1.82
4.67
2.25
3.39

<
<
<
<
>
>
<
>
<

<
>
>
<
>
>
<
>
<

20
21
22
23
24
26
27

Management principles
Internal Locus of Control
External Locus of Control
Deontology/Principles
Teleology/Outcomes
Mistrust of Human Nature
Status Orientation
Achievement Orientation

4.23
2.29
2.59
3.58
1.56
1.62
4.56

<
>
>
<
>
>
<

~
~
>
>
>
>
<

28
29
25
30
31
32
13
33

Management practices
Reliance on Hierarchy
Use of Rank
Participation
Egalitarianism
Communicating Openly
Providing Open Information
Confrontational
Management Capability

2.59
2.29
3.54
2.27
4.43
4.09
2.40
4.15

>
>
<
>
<
<
>
<

>
>
~
>
>
~
>
>

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Note: Mean scores are indicated for Self (Me, as a manager). Scores are from 1(not like this at all) to 5 (exactly
like this).
> denotes Others (Managers generally in my organization) are more like this, or is Required (The type of
manager required for the future of the organization).
< denotes Others (Managers generally in my organization) are less like this, or is Required (The type of manager
required for the future of the organization).
~ denotes no change from the current situation

30