NZJER 32(2) Contents Page
Name
Felicity Lamm and Erling
Rasmussen
Bruce Curtis

Leanne Morris, Pauline Stantonand Suzanne Young

Title

Page
Number

Editors’ Note1

Academic life: Commodification,
continuity, collegiality, confusion and the
Performance Based Research Fund
Performance Management in Higher
Education – Development versus Control

2-17

18-32

Rupert Tipples, Branka
Krivokapic-Skoko and Grant
O’neill

University Academics’ PsychologicalContracts in Australia and New Zealand

33-52

Stephen Weller and Bernadine
Van Gramberg

Attitudes Towards Workplace Change in
the Australian Higher Education Sector:
a tale of divergence and a case for reform

53-68

Stella Ng and Keri Spooner

From IR to HRM: Thank God For
AACSB!

69-86

Cameron Allan, George
Lafferty and John Burgess

University Restructuring and Teaching
Quality

87-99

Erling Rasmussen and Colin
Ross

Chronicle: February 2007 – May 2007

100-110

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 2007, 32(2)A Note from the Editors
Employment relations in the tertiary education sector has been through enormous andcontentious reforms, particularly in the area of managing, codifying and measuring
academic performance. This special issue endeavours to capture the debates and issues
surrounding the reforms and to examine the impact such reforms have had on academe’sunique employment relations experiences.
In the first article, Bruce Curtis, continues his overview of the changes under the
Performance-Based Research Fund (PBRF). He critiques earlier articles on the impact of
the PBRF and notes that: “… the new fund provides both opportunities and dilemmas tothe management and academic staff of universities”. The article by Leanne Morris,
Pauline Stanton, and Suzanne Young examines performance management within thecontext of universities. They argue that although the use of performance management as adevelopmental or monitoring/control tool is not clear, increasingly universities are
strategically linking performance management with organisational goals. Of concern toacademic staff is that “…performance appraisals are being used to reward staff in areasthat were traditionally considered as standard working rights and conditions”.
In the third article, Rupert Tipples, Branka Krivokapic-Skoko, and Grant O’Neill notethat Australasian academics’ psychological contracts have been changing and argue that
it is necessary to understand the formation and content of academics’ psychologicalcontracts in order to understand and manage the work performance of academics. The
article by Stephen Weller and Bernadine Van Gramberg reports on the findings of asurvey that explored staff perceptions of change management in Australian universities
with a view to gauging the effectiveness of workplace change provisions in Higher
Education enterprise agreements. Their findings show that there was a divergence in theperceptions of management and union representatives on workplace change and highlightthe limitations of existing processes to meet the expectations and demands of these key
sector participants.
Stella Ng and Keri Spooner argue in the final article that while the introduction of
performance measures associated with accreditation have added more pressure to an
already over-stretched academic workforce, but these measures can also have targeted
benefits when used to improve curriculum. Their findings showed that the AACSB
accreditation requirements have modified academic resistance to change and have also
resulted in a more meaningful teaching and learning experience.
Felicity Lamm and Erling Rasmussen

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 2007, 32(2)Academic life: Commodification, continuity, collegiality,
confusion and the Performance Based Research Fund
BRUCE CURTIS*
Abstract
Duncan (2007) (after Lyotard, 1984) suggests the Performance Based Research Fund(PBRF) will intensify and commodify academic work in New Zealand. He –no doubt
unintentionally- provides a semiotic inflection of what Burawoy (1979) explored as themyth of the despotic regime of production. This article draws differing conclusions to
Duncan: it focuses on practices of the PBRF and its diverse impacts. The article draws on
earlier work (Curtis & Matthewman, 2005) which suggested high levels of concern
among New Zealand academics about the PBRF. However after two Quality Evaluations(2003 and 2006) that assessed the research performance of individuals and institutions inorder to allocate the PBRF, it is apparent that the new fund provides both opportunities
and dilemmas to the management and academic staff of universities. The PBRF delivers
mixed messages to managers and academic alike and one result is that forms ofcollegiality, in particular those that benefit the professoriate, seem likely to endure for theforeseeable future.

Introduction“The New Zealand government has enthusiastically embraced the utilitarian
discourse of the knowledge economy and has applied it to its shaping of higher
education institutions. The PBRF is a critical component of this overall financialadministrative model. The effects of this, viewed in terms of academic freedom,
have been to undermine the professional autonomy of academic staff and thevalues of independent critical inquiry. There has been little resistance to this fromthe academic community, partly due to their concerns about securing funding, andpartly due to personal anxieties about ‘performance’. Indeed, many academics
now perform research ‘because of’ the new funding system – whereas fundingused to exist as a prior condition for the conduct of research. In short, the PBRF
has had a pernicious effect on academic life and intellectual independence, anduniversity managers and academic staff have permitted, if not encouraged, thesechanges to occur.” (Duncan, 2007:1)
Duncan’s paper on the role of the Performance-Based Research Fund (PBRF) andacademic freedom is a neat conceptual twinning of ‘performance’ in terms of the fundand of Lyotard’s performativity (Lyotard, 1984). Duncan, like Roberts (1998) previously,
looks to Lyotard for explanation of the impact of neoliberal language games on higher
education. Whereas Roberts saw possibilities for resistance by academics, Duncan sees*

Dr Bruce Curtis is a Senior Lecturer, Department of Sociology, The University of Auckland.

1New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 2007, 32(2)collaboration. Duncan paints a grim picture in which academic professional power isdisplaced by a ‘regime of performance management’ and teaching and research iscommodified. Indeed Duncan argues that the PBFR and the Tertiary Education Strategy
breaches, at least in spirit, Section 161 of the Education Act guaranteeing academic
freedom because of its stated intention to align university activities with Government
goals (Ministry of Education, 2003, 2005).
Duncan is engaged in a polemic and while his concerns about the commodification ofteaching and research, including the role of the PBRF, express a potential scholarly
zeitgeist his lack of attention to institutional and sectoral contexts undermine hisargument. Although Duncan identifies a sense of angst –verified at least among
academics within the humanities and social sciences (Curtis, 2008; Curtis &Matthewman, 2005; Phibbs & Curtis, 2006) – this needs to be explored in more detail.
This article seeks to contextualize the concerns raised by Duncan and has the moremodest aim of exploring issues of methodology. The focus is the practices of the PBRF
and its associated Quality Evaluations, including institutionalized forms of gaming(Burawoy, 1979). Rather than a regime of performance management the practice of the
PBRF is more messy and less unidirectional. While a commodification of academic life isstimulated this new development coexists with longstanding practices. Continuity,
collegiality and confusion are revealed as important aspects of academic life in New
ZealandCommodification, Gaming and Market failure?
The PBRF was distributed to institutions of higher education on the basis of the results of
Quality Evaluations (Tertiary Education Commission, 2004a). All New Zealanduniversities took part in both 2003 and 2006 evaluations. The methodology of the Quality
Evaluations has been discussed elsewhere (Web Research, 2004) and only the essential
elements need be recapped.
The Quality Evaluation involved three components. Institutional Quality Scores wereused to distribute sixty percent of the PBRF. Individual staff were rated by expert
multidisciplinary panels and received a Quality Score on their research output (forexample, A = 10, B = 6, C = 1, R = 0). The exercise was compulsory for all eligible staff
employed at the universities (and other institutions of higher education) that sought
funding under the PBRF. Institutional Quality Scores are an overall rating calculated by
the average grade of an institution’s fulltime equivalent (FTE) staff. The balance of the
PBRF was distributed by two other components. Research Degree Completions, worth
twenty-five percent of the fund, is an institutional quantum of the numbers and types offinished graduate degrees. External Research Income, worth fifteen percent of the fund, isa similar measure of funding. These latter components are updated annually byinstitutional reporting to the Tertiary Education Commission (TEC). The individual andinstitutional Quality Score are completely supposed to be calculated on a six yearly cycle.
However, the 2006 Quality Evaluation was a partial round in which TEC only required
new staff and existing staff seeking an improvement to their 2006 Quality Score to2

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 2007, 32(2)participate. Decisions about which existing staff might improve their rating was left to thesenior management of universities. More than half of all eligible staff employed at thetime of the evaluation received a Quality Score (in other words, the partial round was
dominated by universities seeking re-grades for their staff).
In the months following the announcement of the results of the 2006 Quality Evaluationconsiderable media and academic attention was paid to the success of Otago University
in its rating success (for example, Otago’s Quality Score edged Auckland by 0.04) rather
than the actual bulk-funding effects (for example, Otago secured $48 million compared to
Auckland $69 million). Tables 1a and b shows the ranking of institutional Quality Scoresfor the eight New Zealand universities and compares the results of the 2003 and 2006
Quality Evaluations (Tertiary Education Commission, 2004b, 2007b).
TABLE 1a. Ranking of Universities for 2003
Rank University
2003
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
11*

University of Auckland
University of Canterbury
Victoria University of Wellington
University of Otago
University of Waikato
Lincoln University
Massey University
Auckland University of Technology

FTE-weighted
Institutional Quality Score
3.96
3.83
3.39
3.23
2.98
2.56
2.11
0.77

(Source: Tertiary Education Commission, 2004a: 11)*Three bible colleges were ranked 8th, 9th, 10th overall

TABLE 1b. Ranking of Universities for 2006
Rank
University
2006
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

University of Otago
University of Auckland
University of Canterbury
Victoria University of Wellington
University of Waikato
Massey University
Lincoln University
Auckland University of Technology

FTE-weighted
Institutional Quality Score
4.23
4.19
4.10
3.83
3.73
3.06
2.96
1.86

(Source: Tertiary Education Commission, 2007b: 53)

3

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 2007, 32(2)This emphasis on Quality Scores reflects one success of the PBRF (at least from theperspective of government and policymakers) in that the fund has displaced popular andacademic perceptions about a crisis in funding of universities with more diffuse concerns
about a crisis in research. The extent to which this shift owes more to PR than analysis is
unclear. It is hoped that a follow-up survey to Curtis and Matthewman (2005) mightprovide some illumination.
In 2007 funding allocated by the three components in the 2006 Quality Evaluation was
about $230 million. The universities secured 97.43% of the PBRF; twenty-three otherinstitutions the rest. The PBRF is estimated to now provide around one-fifth ofgovernment funding to universities (the bulk of the balance deriving from funding forequivalent fulltime students (EFTS)) (Scott & Scott, 2005). The PBRF has become a key
component of university financing both in the sense of its bulk-funding arrangements andin terms of its reputational benefits and their putative multiplier effects. Table 2 shows
the relative shares of the PBRF.
TABLE 2. Component shares of PBRF in 2003 and 2006
2003
2006
Institution

FTE Staff

Total PBRF

FTE Staff

Total PBRF

Auckland
Otago
MasseyCanterbury
Victoria
Waikato
Lincoln
AUT
Others

19%
16%
16%
8%
8%
7%
3%
8%
15%

29%
22%
14%
12%
9%
7%
3%
2%
2%

18%
14%
14%
8%
9%
6%
3%
5%
24%

30%
21%
15%
10%
9%
6%
3%
2%
2%

(Source: Tertiary Education Commission, 2004b: 71-74; 2007b: 73).

However, Duncan (2007) is spot on in his assessment that actions on the part of senior
management at a number of universities have rendered pointless fine-grained
comparisons of Quality Scores between the 2003 and 2006 Quality Evaluations. The
capacity of senior managers to game the PBRF in terms of the eligibility of academic
staff and by constituting the Nominated Academic Units (for example, Departments,
Schools, Faculties) that are assessed as sub-divisions of each institute of higher education
is discussed elsewhere (Curtis, 2008; Curtis & Matthewman, 2005).
Most significantly, in response to the 2003 Quality Evaluation considerable institutional
effort went into removing existing R-rated (research inactive) staff from the Quality
Evaluation of 2006. Vance, Alexander and Sandhu (2007) demonstrate the extent towhich four of the eight universities (Massey, Otago, Waikato, AUT) gamed the PBRF byremoving research inactive staff from eligibility (it would appear by rewriting their

4New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 2007, 32(2)employment contracts). In these cases the benefits accruing to the universities concerned
from hiring new, research active, staff or through improvements in the Quality Score ofexisting staff were swamped by a factor of at least 2:1 by the benefits of making research
inactive staff ineligible. This gaming around eligible staff accounted for all the changes in
the ranking of institutional Quality Scores (see Table 1). An initial response on the part of
the CEO of the Tertiary Education Commission (TEC) to the effect that this simply
represented a correction to the census of staff undertaken in the 2003 Quality Evaluation(Curtis, notes 26/06/2007) must surely further throw into doubt the validity of the initialstaff census approved by TEC (Curtis, 2008; Curtis & Matthewman, 2005, Web
Research, 2005).
The PBRF remains –as it was formally designed- a central instrument for the bulkfunding of institutions of higher education, albeit to the advantage of universities (Curtis& Matthewman, 2005). It is worth noting that gaming in various forms is built into its
methodology. Thus representatives from the polytechnic sector at a recent post-PBRF
seminar confirmed that their institutions were prepared to suffer the compliance costs ofparticipating in the Quality Evaluations because of the threat from TEC that other, nonresearch, forms of funding were contingent on their involvement (Curtis, notes
26/06/2007). For universities –the primary beneficiaries of the PBRF- the newarrangements discriminate between funding generated by research activities from historicfunding categories generated in effect by teaching (i.e., various EFTS based formulae).
Funding generated by the measure and the comparison of research outputs is a new
funding category in higher education. It, particularly the Quality Score, now informs any
future bulk-funding arrangements including modifications to the EFTS based approach(Tertiary Education Commission, 2007a).
Cleary the PBRF signals a potential for the commodification of academic life insofar as it
creates a new product market (the funding of research outputs) within which universities
must now operate and compete. The most important component of this market is the
Quality Score (which accrues sixty percent of the PBRF) and in so doing valorises
individual staff for their research qua research. Nevertheless Duncan somewhat misses
the point about utilitarian policies. To wit: New Zealand governments embraced‘utilitarian discourses’ several decades ago and have unwaveringly pursued neoliberalism
ever since (Kelsey 2002). In this context the PBRF and projected changes to EFTS-based
funding constitute a second generation in neoliberal policy that both extends the fixation
with markets as policy instruments and tries to address the accumulating market failuresof the first (Easton, 2002). Peck & Tickell (2002) classify this second and putatively
creative phase as at ‘roll-out’ neoliberalism.
The first moment of neoliberal policy dates to changes to funding in the late 1980s. These
created the EFTS-based approach and heralded a quasi-market in higher education.
Teaching became a product market. Universities and other institutions of higher
education were encouraged to compete for students across this product market (Easton,2002). The 1989 Review of Post-Compulsory Education and Training (the Hawke
Report) was the main marker of the realignment of higher education with a market-led
ethos (Hawke, 1988). Accordingly the Ministry of Education developed generic funding5New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 2007, 32(2)categories for degree (postgraduate and undergraduate) and sub-degree programmes, plus
high and low cost courses, and simultaneously relaxed longstanding restrictions on the
curriculum of the non-university sector (Hodder, 2003).
The institutions of higher education were constituted by EFTS-based funding as partiallyinterchangeable providers of educational products. Clearly there were obvious barriers tothis inter-changeablity; for example the location of Schools of Engineering and of
Medicine in only two universities in New Zealand. But outside these professional schools
EFTS-based funding unquestionably fostered competition and nowhere more so than in
the social science and creative curricula. This rivalry had some negative consequences forproviders and students. While the development of an EFTS-based product market inhigher education undoubtedly stimulated competition for students it has since beenargued that this form of funding has encouraged a negative isomorphism -particularly the
proliferation of low quality programmes and courses by institutions in search of student
enrolments (see Ministry of Education, 2004). Such has been the level of popular andpolicy concern about the proliferation of low quality courses and degrees that the EFTSbased approach is now regarded as overly competitive and, most damningly, insensitive
to quality and not linked to government efforts at building a ‘knowledge economy’ (M.A.
Peters, 2001). In contrast the Tertiary Education Strategy: 2002-2007 emphasizes thesynergistic benefits of an educational hierarchy, at least when expressed as collaboration
between the institutions of higher education and the differentiation of these institutions interms of quality and capacity (Ministry of Education, 2003, 2005).
The PBRF is then an important moment in a modification of an existing market-led
approach. In attempting to ameliorate a race to the bottom scenario in which curriculaand standards declined as universities competed for students (and simultaneously lowered
academic thresholds) the PBRF further commodifies academic life by providing a new
potential income stream to universities. For academics, research is valorised bygovernment funding in the same way that teaching is by EFTS-based funding. But
whereas the value of teaching to an institution is relatively easy to capture in terms ofstaff/student ratios, the value of research calculated as the institutional quantum of
individuals’ Quality Scores and more broadly by all three components of Quality
Evaluations, is far more complex.
Duncan (2007) joins a host of writers bemoaning the commodification of academic life
and the tailoring of academic research to best suit funding arrangements. A number ofthese graft a Bravemanian concern with an academic labour process (Wilmott, 1995),
class (Harvie, 2000), work degradation (Bryson, 2004; Yates 2001) and intensification(Chandler, Barry & Clark, 2002; Ogbonna & Harris, 2004) onto a discussion of academic
life. The argument for commodification is at times compelling but it is also anoverstatement insofar as it describes the PBRF. This is because of the methodology of the
PBRF. In this respect the most convincing countervailing element to a straightcommodification thesis is the –non-market- ways in which Quality Scores are derived,that is by expert panels and peer review.

6New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 2007, 32(2)Continuity and Collegiality
The PBRF signals state oversight in funding allocations to the institutions of higher
education on the basis of their research output (Tertiary Education Commission, 2004a,
2004b). This oversight is secured through the Quality Evaluation. At the same time themethodology of the PBRF reflects what an earlier generation of scholars called pathdependency. The new research fund owes as much to the previous legislative
arrangements as it does to any startling new vision of the future. Specifically, the PBRF
expresses a longstanding statutory linkage of teaching and research activities inuniversities (Tertiary Education Commission, 2004a: 13). Hence, the Education Act(1989) [section 254] states that a degree ‘is taught mainly by people engaged in research’.
Duncan overlooks this component but the requirement for research activity on the part ofacademic staff engaged in degree teaching was certainly influential in establishing andresourcing the PBRF (Boston, 2005; M.C. Peters, 2001a, 2001b). The new fund wasestablished through a simple diversion from EFTS-based funding (some of the monies
paid to institutions of higher education for students was used to create the PBRF). The
amount diverted to the PBRF represented the annual top-up paid to institutions of higher
education for students enrolled in degree courses vis-à-vis sub-degree courses.
The PBRF does not increase government funding (Mallard, 2005) or even reverse historic
declines in government funding as a proportion of university revenue (Scott & Scott,2005). Scott and Scott demonstrate a clear decline in terms of real funding per EFTS,
funding as a percentage of university operating revenues, and the ratio of EFTS to fulltime equivalent (FTE) staff (see Curtis, 2008). The PBRF does however require
universities and other institutions of higher education, and individual academics toengage in new forms of audit and (self)representation. Putting aside the extent to which
the PBRF represents old wine in new bottles in terms of funding, the new fund can hardly
be accused of the straightforward commodification of academic life. It has among otherthings stimulated an ex post rationalisation for research in higher education thatemphasizes the function of teaching, albeit with some slippage from the Education Act:
“The purpose of conducting research in the tertiary education sector is twofold: toadvance knowledge and understanding across all fields of human endeavour; andto ensure that learning, and especially research training at the postgraduate level,
occurs in an environment characterised by vigorous and high-quality research
activity.” (Tertiary Education Commission, 2004b: 1)
This positioning of research and teaching seems a far cry from the anticipated splitting ofteaching from research roles that was a concern for New Zealand academics going into
the PBRF (Curtis & Matthewman, 2005) and is an underlying assumption of some
Australian writers (for instance, Marginson, 2006). Rather, it could be argued that, thePBRF provides some shelter for academics insofar as it reiterates the linkage of teaching
and research. An emphasis on PBRF sanctioned activities – particularly those of aprocess nature (for example, building peer esteem) – might even provide academics
limited scope for gaming line management (Curtis, 2006). This is not to deny that the
PBRF and similar forms of evaluation are part of managerial rhetoric around the7New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 2007, 32(2)intensification of academic work but to highlight the importance of institutional contexts
and complexity.
More broadly, the key issue is how academic collegiality fares in the face of new
managerial practices, which attempt to couple a bureaucratic concern with surveillancewith market-like policy instruments. Beyond New Zealand the twinning of declining statefunding and increased oversight, and an associated new managerialism leading to theplaying out of heightened concerns with efficiency and economy has given rise to a hostof gloomy pronouncements about the decline of universities and traditional scholarship(Becher & Trowler, 2001). Halsey (1992) led the charge in bemoaning the decline ofcollegiality but it is a serious mistake to underplay the contradictory aspects ofcollegiality as a start-point for analysis.
Bearing in mind that academic collegiality is based on range of hierarchies that operate
primarily to secure the professoriate as well as a range of secondary or peripheral labour
markets (Connell & Wood, 2002), there are at least three elements at play in New
Zealand. First, the designers of the PBRF were concerned with the need for transparency
and the extent to which collegiality might undermine this imperative. For example, theback room ‘dealing’ considered rife in the UK RAE (M.C. Peters 2001a: 14). This
concern -which is predicated on a neoliberal misrepresentation of markets as allocative
devices (Pusey, 1993)- is cited as the main reason for compulsion and individual Quality
Scores for all eligible staff (Boston, 2004, 2005).
Second, there was considerable support for the development of the PBRF from senior
management and academic staff alike in universities in the lead up to the 2003 Quality
Evaluation (Barnes, 2004; Roberts, 2006), as well as from the union representing
academic and general staff in universities (Association of University Staff, 2002). This
early enthusiasm expressed a collective judgment that any funding exercise whichassessed the quality of research across the institutions of higher education would
inevitably do so to the benefit of the university sector (Curtis & Matthewman, 2005;
Roberts, 2006). The recent reservations expressed by the Association of University Staff
about the PBRF coincide with drive on the part of union leaders to merge with the
Association of Staff in Tertiary Education (which covers the polytechnic sector).
Third, while the designers of the PBRF strived for transparency the methodology they
developed is absolutely dependent on the practices of peer review, the bedrock ofacademic collegiality. Thus twelve multi-disciplinary panels constituted by the Tertiary
Education Commission did the ratings of individual staff in 2003 and 2006. Each panel
involved around 20 academics comprised from the professoriate and including at least
one senior academic employed outside New Zealand and one expert in Maori knowledge(Tertiary Education Commission 2004b: 245-249, 2007b: 260-266).
The panels then rated individual staff by their Evidence Portfolios. The rating was acrossthree dimensions: Nominated Research Outputs (Crothers, 2006), Contribution to
Research Environment and Peer Esteem. These dimensions were weighted seventy
percent, fifteen percent and fifteen percent respectively in calculating a numeric grade out

8New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 2007, 32(2)of 700. Individual academics were then rated A (600-700), B (400-599), C (200-399) orR (less than 200) (as was also noted above, the ratings of individual staff as A, B, C, R
were valued at 10, 6, 2 and 0 respectively in the calculation of an institutional Quality
Score).The practices used by the multi-disciplinary panels in generating Quality Scores
have not been codified. The chair of the moderating panel, Professor Paul Callaghan,suggested that the margin of error for specific ratings of staff might be as high as twenty
percent in 2003 (author’s notes from PBRF Forum, Royal Society of New Zealand, 21
May, 2004). Therefore some speculation is required in lieu of guidelines. A best guess ofthe minima for C-rating includes the following outputs for the six year review period:
four ‘quality assured’ publications, supervision of a number of graduate students and / orsome external funding, involvement in national disciplinary organisations and / or service
to the community. Such a minima is putatively realisable for academic staff who enjoy a
research component to their employment and extremely difficult for staff in teachingonly positions (that is the vast majority of ‘eligible’ staff outside the university sector).
Nevertheless a telling measure of the collegial character of this peer review is how well
the professoriate did vis a vis other academic ranks. Smart (2005) conducted a regression
analysis of the 2003 Quality Evaluation results (for evaluated staff of professor, associate
professor, senior lecturer and lecturer ranks). This amounted to about 70 percent ofevaluated PBRF-eligible staff.
TABLE 3. Dimensions of Quality Score by Academic Rank
Research
Peer Esteem Contribution to
Outputs
Research
Environment
Professor
5.4 / 7
5.4 / 75.1 / 7
Associate Professor 4.7 / 7
4.4 / 7
4.2 / 7
Senior
3.5 / 73.0 / 7
2.9 / 7534.4 / 700
458.5 / 700
335.1 / 700

Lecturer
Lecturer

253.8 / 700

2.8 / 72.1 / 7

1.9 / 7

Quality
Score(Source: Smart, 2005: 43)

Comparisons of average quality scores by discipline and by multidisciplinary panel
suggest that typical hierarchies of academic life are replicated in New Zealand andcaptured (and reproduced by the PBRF). Thus Philosophy, Earth Science, Biomedical
and Physics topped the subject-area rankings while hapless Nursing (Phibbs & Curtis,
2006), Design, Education (Smith, 2005) and Sport and Exercise Science were bottom.
However the across the board success of the professoriate also points to the collegiality of
the PBRF insofar as the methodology of the Quality Evaluations gives priority to thethings professors do best (for example, research entrepreneurialism, lead authorships andinternational networking and publication in international journals). While the PBRF is an
undoubted threat to non-research active staff and a definite spur to new, junior and mid-9

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 2007, 32(2)ranking or just plain ambitious academics, it is primarily a validation of the professoriate
and arguably the traditional or collegial status quo.
The continuity with prior forms of collegiality reflects that the methodology of the PBRF
was at base designed by professors and administered by professors. As such the PBRF
also signals a shift in concentration of responsibility (as distinct to authority) from thesituation in which professors acted as Academic Heads to the proliferation ofacademically mid-ranked Heads of Department. The powers of professors as Heads werereputedly those of grace and favour, essentially the unequal distribution of academic
work and rewards to staff. The PBRF-based / EFTS-based budget holding HoD operates
in a far more transparent environment in which inequities are more difficult to sanction.
Add to this the situation in which university-based HR deals almost exclusively withgeneral staff and the PBRF might be said to add considerably to the pressures facing
HoDs as middle-managers as budget holders without the right to hire or fire.
Further the extension of collegiality into PBRF practice –peer review- seems absent fromthe utilitarian / Marxian formulations. In this respect it is worth reiterating the sour note
expressed by the Minister of Finance in the aftermath of the 2003 Quality Evaluation:“The recent analysis for the Performance-Based Research Fund showed that New
Zealand academics are world-class in areas such as philosophy and criminology;
but we need to ensure that we are world class in biotechnology and the otherdisciplines that, in the medium to long-term, will pay the bills. It is time to shift
the balance of our tertiary system towards more of an explicit industry-led
approach.” (Cullen, 2004)
In other words –and in contrast to Duncan (2007) – the PBRF is regarded as
insufficiently utilitarian in aligning academic practice with government goals for higher
education.

Confusion: mixed messages
The most significant change heralded by the PBRF is the surveillance of academic staff
by their employers, the senior managers of universities. The ratings of individual staff are
made available to each academic and to senior management within each institution. The
extent to which these ratings are made available to line management (e.g. Head of
Department, central HR) is determined at the institutional level. However the publicationof results at the level of Nominated Academic Unit, and the disciplinary level, coupledwith promotion rounds and rumour has ensured that most line managers and mostacademics know the rating (A, B, C or R) of their colleagues. It is tempting to suggestthat the decision to individualise the PBRF speaks primarily to the desire of senior
management in institutions of higher education to undertake surveillance and assessmentof their staff. Such surveillance is undoubtedly attractive but the problem becomes what
to do with the data?

10

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 2007, 32(2)The PBRF is a driver for changes in higher education in New Zealand analogous to those
identified by Clark (1998), Marginson & Considine (2000), Slaughter & Leslie (1997)
and Slaughter & Rhoades (2004) in particular, forms of commodification like the rise ofthe ‘entrepreneurial university’. But the methodology developed for the PBRF (with thesupport of New Zealand Vice Chancellors and the active professoriate) has provided asurprisingly blunt instrument for university managers. Indeed the worrying commentsfrom one Vice-Chancellor in the wake of the 2003 Quality Evaluation about the HR
challenge and reworking academic life (Curtis & Matthewman, 2005; Walsh, 2004) now
seem to be more bluster than strategic vision.
No clear set of policies or practices has yet emerged on how to manage academics in thecontext of the PBRF. Managerial theory seems to have outstripped practice. For example,
Clark (1998) has long since identified the dimensions of successful, entrepreneurial
universities which supposedly fuse academic values and new managerialism. These
purportedly combine in an institutional culture that welcomes change and preserves thebest elements of academic traditions. Putting aside the issue of management-speak andhyperbole that are typically associated with this sort of writing it seems reasonable toattribute at least some of the current managerial deficit or lag to the complexity of results
produced by the methodology of the Quality Evaluation. This is precisely because themethodology of the PBRF follows a mixed model (M.C. Peters, 2001b), in which both
institutions and individuals are assessed during rounds of Quality Evaluation.
The mixed model used by the PBRF has generated decidedly mixed messages: because
institutional funding follows from rankings across three component scores –Quality
Score, Research Degree Completions, External Research Income; and individual Quality
Scores likewise - Nominated Research Outputs, Contribution to Research Environment
and Peer Esteem. Universities are motivated to improve institutional rankings across eachcomponent and dimension which, in turn, produces conflicting demands on academic
units and individuals. The inconsistencies in requiring individual staff and each
Nominated Academic Unit to simultaneously improve their research outputs, secure more
external funding, complete more PhDs and generate more EFTS (which because of the
PBRF are now worth less per undergraduate student) should be obvious. While such‘contradictions’ can be resolved by the simple intensification of academic work
(Ogbonna & Harris, 2004), this sort of challenge to the prevailing professional ethos
around academic life –which Marginson predicts- is also anticipated and resisted by staff(Curtis, 2008, Curtis & Matthewman, 2005).

Conclusion
The obvious error in Duncan’s polemic is to assume the existence of a regime of
performance management rather than to examine the practices of institutions that may
indeed include mangerialist efforts at the intensification of work. He effectively recycles
arguments about the potential for a despotic regime of production (Burawoy, 1979) but
drawn from Lyotard (1984). In contrast, allowing the possibility of counter-tendencies tocommodification, most notably the resilience of a form of collegiality, provides a far

11New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 2007, 32(2)more nuanced account. It then becomes possible to understand the PBRF as both animportant marker and a dilemma for university management. This is precisely the
problem of mixed messages delivered by the PBRF and, in turn, the consequence of themixed model used by the designers of the Quality Evaluation.
Indeed the clearest message the PBFR sends to managers is in all likelihood unintended;
to game the entire process. That is, to creatively rewrite employment contracts so as to
exclude R-rated (research inactive) staff from Quality Evaluation. The results of the 2006
Quality Evaluation confirm that this is the most significant development in the tertiary
sector resulting from the creation of the Performance Based Research Fund (Vance,
Alexander and Sandhu, 2007). This is no doubt of considerable embarrassment to the
Tertiary Education Commission (and it will be of interest to see if / how the government
agency fixes the loopholes before the scheduled Quality Evaluation in 2012).
Nevertheless, the mixed messages provided by Quality Evaluations and the subsequent
gaming by some managers, is not the entire story of the PBRF. It should also be stressedthat the professoriate played a role in designing the methodology of the Quality
Evaluations. Therefore it is hardly surprising that the resulting approach simultaneously
extends peer review into the allocation of the new fund to institutions and rewards theprofessoriate vis a vis other academic ranks. In short the hierarchical arrangement of
academic collegiality are in no way undone -and are in practice secured- by Quality
Evaluation and the PBRF. The PBRF does not provide a major break with tradition(Duncan, 2007) rather it owes more to the continuation of longstanding hierarchicalarrangements involving academic rank, and also the disciplinary and institutional locationof academic life.

References
Association of University Staff. (2002). Performance-Based Research Fund: Policy
Statement. Available at: www.aus.ac.nz/policy_professional/PBRF/policy.htm.
Barnes, T. (2004). Transcript of Plenary Sessions, PBRF Forum: Evaluation theAssessment Framework, The Royal Society of New Zealand Social Sciences Committee,
21 May. Available at: www.rsnz.govt.nz/advisory/social_science/media/pbrf2004plenary.php.
Becher, R. & Trowler, P. R. (2001). Academic tribes and territories: intellectual enquiry
and the culture of disciplines. Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher Education
and The Open University.
Boston, J. (2004). Evaluation of the assessment framework, paper presented at the PBRF
Forum, Royal Society of New Zealand, Social Sciences Committee, 21 May. Available
at: www.rsnz.govt.nz/advisory/social_science/media/pbrf2004-plenary.php.

12

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 2007, 32(2)Boston, J. (2005). The performance-based research fund: key concerns and future
directions – where to from here? in R. Smith and J. Jesson (Eds.) Punishing the discipline– the PBRF regime: Evaluating the position of Education – where to from here?
Auckland: Auckland University of Technology and University of Auckland: 173-185.
Bryson, C. (2004). What about the workers? The expansion of higher education andthe transformation of academic work. Industrial Relations Journal. 35(1): 38-57.
Burawoy, M. (1979). Manufacturing Consent: Changes in the Labor Process Under
Monopoly Capitalism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Chandler, J., Barry, J. & Clark, H. (2002). Stressing academe: the wear and tear of
the New Public Management. Human Relations. 55(9): 1051-1069.
Clark, B. (1998). Creating entrepreneurial universities: organizational pathways oftransformation. London: Pergamon.
Connell, R. & Wood, J. (2002). Globalization and scientific labour: patterns in a lifehistory study of intellectual workers in the periphery. Journal of Sociology. 38: 167-178.
Crothers, C. (2006). Mapping the Social Sciences: Characteristics of new Zealand
Academic Research Outputs. BRCSS Occasional Paper Series No. 3, ISSN 1177-2360,
Palmerston North: Building Research Capability in the Social Sciences.
Cullen, M. (2004). Speech to Hamilton Club ABN AMRO Craigs Economic Breakfast
Briefing: NZ’s Path to Growth. Hamilton Club, Hamilton, 15 July 2004.
Curtis, B. (2008). The Performance Based Research Fund: The Performance-Based
Research Fund: Research assessment and funding in New Zealand. Globalisation,
Societies and Education, 6(1): in press.
Curtis, B. (2006). Tactics of resistance in academic work. In Colic-Peiskar, V.
McNamara, B. and Tilbury, F. (eds.), Sociology for a mobile world: TASA 2006
Conference Proceedings, The Institute of Advanced Studies, University of Western
Australia, ISBN-13: 978-1-74052-139-0.
Curtis, B. (2007). notes from Forum on the PBRF, Co-hosted by the Institute of Policy
Studies, Victoria University of Wellington, the Ministry of Education and the Tertiary
Education Commission, Victoria University of Wellington, 26 June.
Curtis, B. & Matthewman, S. (2005). The managed university: The PBRF, its impacts
and staff attitudes (in the humanities and social sciences). New Zealand Journal of
Employment Relations. 30(2): 1-18.
Duncan, G. (2007). Shifting Discourse: the value of the PBRF, Public Policy Group,
University of Auckland, 10 July.

13

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 2007, 32(2)Easton, B. (2002). Why economists don’t understand education … but still try to run it.
Available at: www.eastonbh.ac.nz/article120.html.
Halsey, A.H. (1992). Decline of donnish dominion: The British academic professions in
the twentieth century. New York : Oxford University Press.
Harvie, D. (2000). Alienation, Class and Enclosure in UK Universities. Capital andClass. 71: 103-132.
Hawke, G.R. (1988). Report on post-compulsory education and training in New Zealand.
Wellington: Office of the Associate Minister of Education.
Hodder, J. (2003). The Education (Tertiary Reform) Amendment Act 2002. Wellington:
Chapman Tripp.
Kelsey, J. (2002). At the Crossroads: Three essays. Wellington: Bridget Williams Books.
Lyotard, J. (1984). The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press.
Mallard, T. (2005). Tertiary education funding switches to quality. Press release, 19 May
2005. www.beehive.govt.nz/ViewDocument.aspx?DocumentID =23108.
Marginson, S. (2006). Dynamics of national and global competition in higher education.
Higher Education. 52(1): 1-39
Ministry of Education. (2003). Statement of tertiary education priorities: 2003/2004.
Wellington: Ministry of Education.
Ministry of Education. (2005). Statement of tertiary education priorities: 2005/2007.
Wellington: Ministry of Education.
Ogbonna, E. & Harris, L. (2004). Work intensification and emotional labour among UK
university lecturers: an exploratory study. Organization Studies. 25(7): 1185-1203.
Peck, J. & Tickell, A. (2002). Neoliberalizing Space. Antipode 34(3): 380-404.
Peters, M.A. (2001). National education policy constructions of the ‘knowledge
economy’: towards critique’. Journal of Educational Enquiry 2(1): 1-22.
Peters, M.C. (2001a). Performance-based research funding options for the tertiary
education sector (Part B., Wellington: New Zealand Vice Chancellors’ Committee.

14

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 2007, 32(2)Peters, M.C. (2001b). Performance-based research funding (PBRF): mixed model
implementation details, discussion paper (Part C). Wellington: New Zealand Vice
Chancellors’ Committee.
Phibbs, S., and Curtis, B. (2006). Gender, Nursing and the PBRF. Nursing Praxis, 22 (2):
4-12.
Pusey, M. (1993). Reclaiming the Middle Ground: From New Right Economic
Rationalism. In S. King and P. Lloyd (Eds.). Economic Rationalism: Dead End or Way
Forward? Sydney: Allen and Unwin: 12-28
Roberts, P. (1998). Rereading Lyotard: Knowledge, Commodification and Higher
Education. Electronic Journal of Sociology. 3(3): 1-23.
Roberts, P. (2006). Performativity, measurement and research: A critique of
performance-based research funding in New Zealand. In: J. Ozga, T. Popkewitz & T.
Seddon (Eds.). World Yearbook in Education: Education Research and Policy, London:
Routledge Falmer: 188-195
Scott, W.A. & Scott, H.M. (2005). A Longitudinal Study of New Zealand University
Income and Student Numbers. New Zealand Journal of Tertiary Education Policy 1 (2):
1-15.
Smart, W. (2005). What determines the research performance of staff in New Zealand’s
tertiary education sector?: an analysis of the Performance-Based Research Fund Quality
Evaluation, Wellington: Ministry of Education.
Smith, R. (2005). Research counts: ranking the disciplines -39 of 41- is up the only way
for education? In R. Smith and J. Jesson (eds.) Punishing the discipline – the PBRF
regime: Evaluating the position of Education – where to from here?, (Auckland,
Auckland University of Technology and University of Auckland): 1-19.
Tertiary Education Commission. (2004a). Overview and key findings: PerformanceBased Research Fund, evaluating excellence: the 2003 assessment. Wellington: Tertiary
Education Commission.
Tertiary Education Commission. (2004b). Performance-Based Research Fund,evaluating excellence: The 2006 assessment. Wellington: Tertiary Education
Commission.
Tertiary Education Commission. (2007a). Investing in a Plan: A New System for
Investing in Tertiary Education. Wellington: Tertiary Education Commission.
Tertiary Education Commission. (2007b). Performance-Based Research Fund,evaluating excellence: The 2006 assessment, Wellington: Tertiary Education
Commission.

15

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 2007, 32(2)Vance, P., Alexander, S. & Sandhu, A. (2007). Phase Two PBRF Evaluation – context
for the analysis of data in Evidence Portfolios. Wellington: Tertiary Education
Commission.
Walsh, P. (2004). Transcript of Plenary Sessions, PBRF Forum: Evaluation of theAssessment Framework. The Royal Society of New Zealand Social Sciences Committee,
http://www.rsnz.govt.nz/advisory/social_science/media/pbrf2004-plenary.php, accessed
25 May 2005.
Web Research, (2004). Phase I evaluation of the implementation of the PBRF and the
conduct of the 2003 Quality Evaluation, Wellington: Centre for Research on Work,
Education and Business Ltd.
Willmott, H. (1995). Managing the Academics: Commodification and Control in theDevelopment of University Education in the U.K. Human Relations. 48(9): 993-1027.
Yates, M. (2000). Us Versus Them: Laboring in the Academic Factory. Monthly
Review 51(8): 40-49.

16

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 2007, 32(2)Performance Management in Higher Education – Development
versus Control
L. MORRIS*, P. STANTON** and S. YOUNG***
Abstract
Since the late 1980s higher education in Australia has been the focus of major restructure andreform in a search for greater efficiency, effectiveness and accountability. A key component
has been performance management of academic staff with performance appraisals being themain process used. This paper examines enterprise bargaining agreements of universities to
explore the status of performance management. It asks a number of questions such as: Whatdo performance management systems look like? Are they linked to strategic goals? What
feedback mechanisms are used? Do they have a developmental or monitoring/ control focus?
It concludes that universities express a strategic link to performance management with theresult that individual academic performance is increasingly being linked to organisational
goals. However the use of performance management as a developmental ormonitoring/control tool is less clear. This is apparent as performance appraisals are being used
to reward staff in areas that were traditionally considered as standard working rights andconditions.

Introduction
Since the late 1980s higher education in Australia has been the focus of major restructure andreform in a search for greater efficiency, effectiveness and accountability. Policies have been
introduced designed to increase efficiency and reduce costs through amalgamations,downsizing and changes in delivery and accountability. A key component of higher education
reform both in Australia and overseas has been the search for improved quality assurance andmanagement and within that context a focus on academic accountability. Universities inAustralia introduced the concept of measuring academic performance in 1988 and formally
introduced performance appraisal for developmental purposes in 1991 (Lonsdale 1998).
Since that time a number of reviews and audits have highlighted the central role ofperformance management of staff in achieving good quality outcomes.

From the late 1980s, the neo-liberal agenda has been the driver of managerialism and New
Public Management policies which successive governments have adopted and usedinternationally and in Australia to alter funding, structures and work practices across thewhole public sector (Young 2004). Running parallel with these policy and management*

Leanne Morris is Senior Lecturer in Human Resource Management in the Faculty of Business and Law, Deakin
University.
** Pauline Stanton is an Associate Professor in Human Resource Management in the Graduate School ofManagement at LaTrobe University.
***
Suzanne Young is a Senior Lecturer in Management and Governance and Director of Executive Education in
the Graduate School of Management at LaTrobe University

17

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 2007, 32(2)changes in higher education were changes in the industrial relations arena which haveencouraged an emphasis on efficiency and productivity through decentralisation andbargaining at the enterprise level. More recently industrial relations has become a vehicle ofchange in the higher education sector (Barnes 2006) as government industrial relations policy
has included a greater focus on the individual and individual agreement making (O’Brien
Valadkhani, Waring and Dennis 2007).
These parallel changes in the Australian university environment have major implications forthe work of academics yet it is surprising that since the early 1990s there is a paucity of
research on the performance management (PM) of academics within universities. This article
explores the status of performance management by examining the current Enterprise
Bargaining Agreements (EBAs) of 37 Australian universities. First, the article examines theliterature incorporating performance management and its use in Australian universities.
Second, using the literature and recommendations from the Hoare Report (1995) as ananalytical framework, the article analyses the key components of the EBAs. And finallyconclusions are drawn incorporating further areas for research.

Background
Performance appraisal (PA), once associated with a basic process involving an annual reporton a subordinate’s position has now become a general term for a range of activities thatorganisations now undertake to assess employees, develop their competence and distribute
rewards (Fletcher 2001). In many cases performance appraisal has evolved to become part ofa wider approach to integrating human resource management strategies, known as
performance management (Fletcher 2001). In this regard Connell and Nolan (2004) define
performance management (PM) as a strategic approach to integrating human resource
activities and business policies. Notwithstanding this, in practice performance management
can have three different foci or objectives: to manage organisational performance; to manage
employee performance; or as a system for integrating the management of organisational andemployee performance (Fletcher 2001). Hence, critical success factors for an holistic andintegrated performance management system includes its alignment with the organisation’s
strategic goals, its credibility within the organisation and its integration with other HRM
functions such as reward systems, learning and development, and career progression andpromotion (ANAO 2004-5 p14).
Performance management consistently emerges as one of the key components in the research
into high performance and high commitment work places (Zacharatos, Barling and Iverson2005) and there is evidence that effective PM is linked to improved financial performance(McDonald and Smith 1995; Rheem 1996). However, recent research and anecdotal evidence
suggests that despite its promise many managers, practitioners and employees in a wide range
of industries are dissatisfied with and cynical about performance management processes(Nankervis and Compton 2006). Their dissatisfaction often focuses on the application of theperformance appraisal tool and the often judgemental process of performance review (Parker,
2003). In particular the perception of “procedural justice” - the equity and transparency of theprocess and “distributive justice” - the fairness and appropriateness of reward and recognition
are often a source of discontent (Gabris and Ihrke 2000). The lack of managerial skills andabilities in the performance review process is also often problematic (Lawler 1994). While theinability of performance appraisal to motivate staff was identified in early research (Meyer,
18New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 2007, 32(2)Kay and French, 1965, Pearce and Porter 1986) more recent research by Fletcher (2001) has
shown that most UK organisations express dissatisfaction with their performance appraisal
system, due to its failure to deliver valid performance ratings and its failure to develop andmotivate people.
Accordingly, the PA tool can be viewed positively as a developmental experience if linked tocareer progression and training and development, or negatively as an exercise in monitoring
and control. In examining these two approaches, Simmons (2001) questions whetherorganisations can accommodate these potentially opposing aims. And this dichotomy has
particular implications for the higher education sector in reconciling organisational desire forcontrol and compliance with employee expectations of development and support (Hendry et
al. 2000). Commentators such as Townley (1990), Henson (1994), Holley and Oliver (2000),
Barry, Chandler and Clark (2001), and Simmons (2002) advocate a developmental approachto performance appraisal in universities. They argue that the traditional emphasis on ‘control’
is inappropriate, unworkable and unacceptable in knowledge-based organisations such asuniversities. Performance appraisals with a developmental focus are more appropriate,allowing academics to determine which aspects of their roles require development andsupport. Applying a performance appraisal system which best befits an organisation based onhierarchical authority and direction (Simmons 2002) is inappropriate for those organisations
which are knowledge based, have flatter hierarchies and use employee flexibility to compete
effectively (Fletcher 2001).
Whilst while performance management might arguably benefit both organisations andemployees (Nankervis and Compton, 2006) it is suggested that if those responsible formanaging the performance of academics want to maximise the contribution and commitmentof their academic staff, then they will need to implement a performance appraisal system foracademics that uses criteria that are relevant, valid and developmental (Simmons 2002, p 98).

Performance Management in Australian Universities
Performance management was introduced in Australian Universities within the domestic andinternational context of a New Public Management and managerialist paradigm. The
discourse centred on introducing efficiency, cost reduction, responsiveness and accountability
across the public sector (Dunford, Bramble and Littler 1998, p.386). Funding cut backs,
amalgamation of instrumentalities and services, including universities, deregulation anddecentralisation were tools of this approach. Universities had to operate within this ideology
and adapt to the changing foci of government in areas including ideology, fiscal and industrial
relations environments (Young 2004).
Performance appraisal was originally introduced into Australian universities in 1988 under an
Industrial Award of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC). Considerable
debate ensued as to its underlying purpose and whether the aim was the development of
academic staff or greater monitoring and control of academic staff (Ryan 1991). As Lonsdale(1990, p.101) suggested, “Much needs to be done to ensure that their application in the higher
education context occurs in a manner which is sensitive to the unique characteristics of theacademic enterprise”. In 1990 it was decided by the AIRC that an amendment to the Awardshould be made which saw performance appraisals, designed for developmental purposes,
incorporated into the University Industrial Award. This was implemented in 1991. However,19New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 2007, 32(2)despite this developmental focus Ryan (1991, p.91) noted, “…the term developmental appears
in the rhetoric and methods advocated by managerialists and developmentalists alike often
obscures the different ideologies and intentions guiding the two approaches”.
Lonsdale (1998) argued that the development of performance appraisals and performance
management in universities internationally occurred through successive generations. The first
generation reflected a narrow performance appraisal approach which involved formal
assessment by supervisors and feedback provided to subordinates. This approach was usuallyauthoritarian in nature, individualistic, non-aligned to strategic goals and reflected amonitoring and control oriented approach to staff management. He suggested however, thatthe approach surrounding the introduction of performance appraisal into higher education inAustralia was a ‘second generation’ approach with two clear characteristics. The first wasthat the key objective of staff appraisal was for developmental purposes, and second, thatappraisal schemes needed to be consistent with the values of the scholarly purposes of theuniversity, a view that emerged from the National Steering Committee on Staff Appraisal in
1995.
Clearly a more strategic approach to managing performance was beginning to occur at thistime. However, this approach was underpinned by some assumptions: first, that staff appraisalis the appropriate mechanism for identifying the needs of academic staff and is effective indoing so; second, that the identification of developmental needs leads to successful
development activity by academic staff: and third, that staff development activity leads in turnto improved performance (Lonsdale 1998, p.305). From the results of a two year national
study on the outcomes of performance appraisals in Australian universities, Lonsdale (1998,
p.305) concluded that, “staff appraisal for ‘developmental purposes’ turned out to be
unsuccessful”. He suggested that the failure of performance appraisals to deliver the expected
performance improvements and subsequent organisational outcomes compelled universities tore-consider their previous approach to managing performance. The findings of the Higher
Education Management Review Committee (Hoare 1995) and the Review of Higher
Education Financing and Policy (West 1998) suggested that given the increasinglycompetitive and commercial environment in which universities operated they needed a morestrategic focus in the way they nurtured and managed staff. Since that time there has been
increasing evidence that universities have attempted to do so by enhancing staff productivity
and organisational effectiveness through changes to their performance management system
via their enterprise agreements (Lonsdale 1998). This resulted in what Lonsdale terms his“third generation” approach where Australian universities sought to introduce more holistic
performance management systems.
Lonsdale (1998) suggested that this “third generation” approach is reflected in a central
recommendation in the Hoare Report which stated that the aims of any performance
management system should not only be “based on agreed performance and developmental
objectives for the individual” but also should be based on key principles. These principles
include:•the need to have a clear relationship between the performance of an individual staff
member and the strategic direction of the department, school or faculty, or theuniversity.

20

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 2007, 32(2)•••to inform and provide feedback to staff on the level of their performance and skill
development. This feedback could include comment from supervisors, colleagues,
staff, students or other appropriate persons.
to identify areas of future development for staff and formulate action plans for careerdevelopment; andto generate data for making decisions on matters such as probation, increments, tenure
contract renewal, and the management of diminished or unsatisfactory performance.

This review was commissioned by the then Minister for Employment Education and Training
to examine the higher education system with “the objective of developing excellence inmanagement and accountability for the resources available to the sector” (Hoare 1995, p1).
The Hoare Report addressed a range of specific issues including employment and personnel
practices and recommended, as part of workplace reform, that all universities should phase in
a comprehensive approach to performance management based on agreed performance anddevelopmental objectives for the individual. As far as possible, it was suggested that theconsideration of these matters, currently undertaken in a disparate manner, should be brought
together” (Hoare 1995 cited in Lonsdale 1998, p.307). Clearly the stated purpose here moved
from a narrow focus on performance appraisal to recognition for the need to develop
performance management systems in universities that were strategic, developmental andadministrative and were also aligned, integrated and credible within the organisation.
In developing such a system Enterprise Bargaining has provided a mechanism for individual
universities to do so in a way that suits their own needs. University Enterprise Bargaining
Agreements (EBAs) have been negotiated collectively at the local level by the National
Tertiary Education Union (NTEU) since 1994. Since that time the academic sector has had
four bargaining rounds in which academic performance has been a key component. This
industrial environment has given universities an opportunity to determine their own form of
performance management. Despite the fact that it has been the covert policy of the NTEU toengage in pattern bargaining and if possible have similar clauses in agreements acrossuniversities, it is possible that these systems can vary considerably between universities.
A number of questions concerning the current status of performance management inAustralian universities emerge. These include, what do performance management systems
look like in Australian universities today? Are they linked to strategic goals if so how andwhat kind of feedback mechanisms do they include? Do they have a developmental focus orthey more concerned with monitoring and control? Are they becoming more integrated andstreamlined with other HRM policies? Importantly are there different types of performancesystems emerging in universities with different foci? One way to begin to answer thesequestions is to explore the role and status of performance management in Enterprise
Bargaining Agreements. As EBAs are legally binding documents the inclusion of
performance management clauses and how and where they are expressed can give valuable
insight into the importance that the university places on PM systems and the approach that theuniversity takes to the performance management of its staff. This paper examines theEnterprise Bargaining Agreements of Australian universities to identify similarities anddifferences in the approach that Australian universities are taking in the performance of theiracademic staff.

21

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 2007, 32(2)Methodology
This research involves examining university documentation and is part of a larger study of
performance management of academics in Australian universities. In Australia theuniversities’ priorities in regard to PM can be uncovered from examining EBAs anduniversity HR policies and procedures. The limitations to the approach used in this article isthat the research only examines the priorities of universities in regard to PM and the content
of PM systems as articulated in EBAs. Other limitations of the analysis were that themechanisms EBAs used to glean any of the information were not examined nor were
university policies or performance management systems. This will form part of the next stageof the research.
For this research 37 EBAs were accessed directly through the university websites. As EBAs
are public documents the agreements were readily accessible. Using content analysis the
documents were analysed by identifying the section headed “Performance Management” or
the most similar nomenclature. It needs to be noted that several universities chose to separateor spread elements often regarded as coming under the umbrella of performance management
across the EBA. It did not always appear as a discreet section, however, where possible theinformation was gleaned from the introduction to the section in general and/or the section
related to performance management. Two universities chose to write only one and two lines
respectively on performance management in the EBA, and in doing so refer the reader torelevant university policies for more detail. Those policies were not accessed for this analysis.
The clauses on performance management were analysed using a key recommendation fromthe Higher Education Management Review 1995 (now referred to as the Hoare Report) as theframework. These four recommendations are stated earlier in the article.
Considering each in turn, first, to identify the link between strategic objectives and staff
performance, the EBAs were examined to see if there was a stated relationship between thework of the individual and the organisation’s strategic focus and to explore the nature of that
relationship. Second, the provision of effective feedback mechanisms was explored byascertaining if the EBAs stipulated any element of feedback and if so, was it to occur at thelevel of performance and/or skill development. Third, to identify areas of future development
for staff and formulate action plans for career development the EBAs were examined using
two criteria; did the EBA include future development of staff and if so, did it include actionplans or mechanisms to facilitate this development? Finally, generation of data which can beused for other matters was explored by ascertaining if, in their purpose or introduction the
EBAs identified any of the following five areas: probation, increments, tenure, contract
renewal and the management of underperformance. In addition the EBAs were examined tosee if there were other uses identified for the data. Finally integration and linkages between
key areas were examined.

22

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 2007, 32(2)Findings
Identifying the link between strategic objectives and staff performance
An examination of the thirty seven EBAs was undertaken to see if they identified the link
between the performance management of staff and the strategic direction of the university andis displayed numerically in Table 1. This was done by identifying statements such as:“...The Performance Development Framework supports staff to develop to their fullpotential to achieve personal and professional goals congruent with the strategic andoperational objectives of the university.”“...ensure that the professional development policy and practice within the University is
directly linked to organisational development and the realisation of the University's
vision, mission and goals; and give strategic guidance to providers of professional
development activities.”
TABLE 1: Link between performance management and strategic direction

Strategic
Relationship

Yes
27

%
73

No
10

%
27

Seventy-two percent (27) universities could be said to link individual performance withorganisational performance in the sense that their EBAs had a clear statement with this intent.
However, twenty-seven percent (10) of university EBAs made no mention of strategic links.
The second part of this analysis examined the nature of the relationship and whether the
relationship between the employer and the academic could be loosely described as‘developmental’ or ‘monitoring/control’, the results of which are shown in Table 2. Examples
that we considered ‘developmental’ included:“A performance development and review program encourages the development andmaintenance of a culture of continual improvement within a productive, positive andharmonious work environment where staff and supervisors work in partnership toachieve personal and professional goals aligned with the university’s strategic andoperational objectives”;
and;“The university’s development as an innovative scholarly and global university
meeting the needs of the 21st century is inextricably linked to the development of all of
the university staff.”And,“Both the university and academic staff members accept the responsibility for
performance enhancement and career development.”‘Monitoring/control’ responses included:23

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 2007, 32(2)“All staff members are requested to participate in performance planning andmonitoring as required in the university’s policy”;
and“All academic staff employed on a full-time or part-time basis…will be required to undertakea performance review on an annual basis”; and“The Career and Performance Development Scheme … is the formal and periodic
setting of that staff members performance objectives and the assessment of performance anddevelopment needs.”
Other similar statements included “The university will continue to use the performanceappraisal scheme as one mechanism for individuals to contribute to organisational
productivity and performance.”
TABLE 2: Nature of relationship between employer and employee exhibited by theperformance management system
Number21
16

Nature of Relationship
Developmental
Monitoring/control

%
57
43

Using these categories, of the thirty seven universities analysed fifty-seven percent (21) werecategorised as having a developmental focus and forty-three percent (16) as having amonitoring/control approach.
Of the twenty one universities which were categorised as having a developmental focus,
twenty of them also identified a strategic link between organisational directions and staff
performance. Of the twenty seven universities which had a clear statement of strategic links,
twenty also had a developmental focus. There were nine universities which had neither astrategic nor developmental focus identified in their EBA. Of the ten universities with nostatement of strategic link to performance management nine of these also were categorised ashaving a monitoring/control approach. This information is summarised in Table 3.
TABLE 3: Matrix identifying links between performance management and strategic
direction and relationship between employer and employee
Strategic link
Developmental
Monitoring/control
Total

20
7
27

No strategic
Link
1
9
10

Total
21
16
37

Provision of effective feedback mechanisms:
As Table 4 shows staff feedback mechanisms were identified in the performance management
systems of seventy-eight percent of university EBAs (29 out of 37). Since staff feedback is a
key component of performance management this is hardly surprising, but whether it is24

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 2007, 32(2)effective is not able to be ascertained. Of these twenty nine EBAs, two provided feedback
only on performance with no mention made of any skill development.
TABLE 4: Performance management’s provision of feedback

Provide feedback

Yes
29

%
78

No
8

%
22

Identify areas of future development for staff and formulate action plans for careerdevelopment:
Of all four items in the Hoare report’s recommendations this section was the most strongly
reported as displayed in Table 5. Sixty-eight percent (25) of universities identified the need to
identify future development for staff in their EBAs. However, only twenty-two percent (8/25)of that group mentioned, in the broadest interpretation possible, any form of action plan to put
this into operation. Although one university specifically identified that the development ofstaff should be in the teaching area.
TABLE 5: Performance management system used to identify future development needs
and action plans to do so
Yes
Identify
future 25
development
Mention action plans
8

%
67.5

No
12

%
44.5

22

Data for making decisions on other matters including, probation, increments, tenure,contract renewal and management of diminished or unsatisfactory performance andintegration of policies:
An examination of the EBAs revealed that universities used the data collected fromperformance management systems for a variety of uses including five key criteria identified in
the Hoare Report. Table 6 shows these.
TABLE 6: Major uses of performance management data
USES FOR DATA
Probation
Increments
TenureContract renewal
Management of diminishedunsatisfactory performance

YES
7
10
4
2
or 17

%
19
27
11
5
46

The most popular usage of the data was management of diminished or unsatisfactory
performance (46%). Other uses of the data were for increments in salary (27%), review ofprobation (19%), awarding of tenure (11%) and renewal of contract (5%). Interestingly, not
one university included all five of these criteria but two universities included four out of the25New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 2007, 32(2)five listed above. Also twelve universities had none of the five criteria and six universities
only had one of the five listed. Two universities specifically stated that performance
management data was not to be used for the management of poor performance or fordisciplinary reasons.
Some universities offered several other uses for the data other than those listed in the Hoare
report. These included: promotion (12), rewards (13), including bonuses and loadings (3),performance-related pay (1) and unspecified rewards (9); Outside Study Program and study
leave (4), conference attendance (2), conference travel (1), secondment (2), leave without pay
for developmental purposes ( 2) and research grants (2); and fellowships (1), special studies(1), work priorities (1), scholarship (1), internal recognition (1) staff exchange (1), job
rotation (1), job evaluation (1), VC Awards (1). Some EBAs include both academic andgeneral staff so it is likely that some uses relate specifically to general staff and some toacademic staff.

Discussion
The findings from this study clearly show that the majority of Enterprise Bargaining
Agreements in Australian universities express a strategic link to performance management,with the result being that individual academic performance is increasingly being linked toorganisational goals. What we do not know is how well this sits with a workforce thattraditionally guards its right to practice its “academic freedom” that is, to seek and find new
knowledge in many different directions, which is not necessarily linked to university strategy.
It is also clear that although most universities appear to have a developmental approach toperformance management there are a number that have a narrower focus with an emphasis on
monitoring and control. We have not explored the reason for this. In this regard questions forfurther research arise: Is it due to the ideology of the university or council? Does it represent
the weakness of the NTEU in the bargaining process? What cannot be ignored is the
managerialist focus of successive governments in the federal arena and their increasing
control over universities alongside what we could call “negative” pronouncements on
academic work, research and freedom. This is likely to be even more significant due to thedirect involvement of government into industrial relations in higher education through theHigher Education Workplace Relations Requirements (HEWRR) placing restrictions on thecontent of Enterprise Agreements and university policies in order to access a funding pool of$260 million (Barnes 2006). How this influences the performance management approaches
stated in the EBA clauses in the future is worth further exploration.
Reward is a contentious area in education and over ten years ago the Karpin Report (1995)
suggested management schools should manage the performance of staff by the use of key
performance indicators, 360 degree feedback and developmental plans for academics. This
would then be linked to an incentive scheme and performance bonuses. This was supported
also by the Review of Higher Education Financing and Policy discussion paper (West 1998, p36) which stated, “The most direct incentives for good teaching are to pay gifted teachers
more or provide them with other benefits in the form of enhanced conditions of employment”.
However, despite the move to enterprise bargaining which ostensibly gave universities the
freedom to introduce performance related pay systems little appears to have been done
formally. More recently the Hon Julie Bishop MP Federal Minister for Education, Science26

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 2007, 32(2)and Training has argued the case for the benefits of pay-for-performance for teachers. In
March 2007 at an address to the Australian Higher Education Industrial Association (AHEIA)
she prodded university management to take up opportunities presented to them bygovernment in saying “The HEWRRs provide universities with an increased ability to attract,
retain and reward high quality staff by allowing for performance-based agreements andworking arrangements tailored to individuals” (Bishop 2007). Universities failure tosystematically use the enterprise bargaining process to push pay-for-performance could be
due to the strength of the academic union which in principle opposes the use of performance
related pay (PRP) (Heneman 1992) and supports existing formal salary structures inuniversities as a means to limit administrative discretion and perceived favouritism. This
desire for similar treatment is often articulated as an attempt to preserve worker unity,
maintain good morale and a cooperative workplace (Lazear 1989). Or it could be that thefinancial restrictions and constraints that universities work within, including restrictions onfees and student places, make pay restructuring and the uncertainty that accompanies it
undesirable and risky. In a similar vein it may be due to the fact that the rhetoric by thefederal government has not been matched by any increases in overall funding and the zero
sum nature of government funding of the sector means that any movement to such a system
simply means reallocating wages from base pay to variable pay.
Instead of an overhaul of the payment structures in academia, what we might be witnessing ismanagement seeking greater discretion over a range of rewards, some of which are linked tosalary, in an attempt to improve productivity and to motivate academics. Grant (1998) argued
that many Canadian universities have merit plans as part of their formal salary structure
including things such as conditions and criteria for tenure and promotion, market
supplements, equity funds to remedy salary anomalies, and non-salary benefits. While it
might not be possible (or may be possible but universities may be unwilling) for Australian
universities at this point in time to introduce merit pay, it might be possible through the use of
these ‘other’ uses of performance data to achieve the same end. It appears that Australian
universities are endeavouring to reward staff through a range of measures, albeit that in thepast these measures such as conference attendance, conference travel and outside study
programs were considered as rights of academics.

Conclusion
The framework used in this paper has summarised performance management approaches infour ways and raised questions centred on the linking of the performance management system
to strategic goals, the types of feedback mechanisms used, the contrast between its use as adevelopmental or monitoring and control tool, and the integration with other HRM policies.
This paper has used an examination of universities EBAs to explore such questions anduncover the importance that the university places on PM systems and the approach that theuniversity takes to the performance management of its staff.
Although strategic objectives are clearly stated in the majority of performance management
statements, the contrast between the use of performance management as a developmental orcontrol tool is less clear. The introduction of performance management systems per se can be
regarded as an outcome of managerialism with its emphasis on efficiency and control, andindividual appraisals at the expense of collective negotiation. In this vein, the linking of
performance management to what has been considered ‘normal’ work practices such as
27

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 2007, 32(2)increments and study leave can be considered as part of managerialism attempts to control,
even though motherhood statements in relation to strategy and developmental approaches may
be also be made.
Whist the majority of performance management systems stipulate feedback as a tool this ishardly surprising but whether it is effective is yet to be ascertained. What is interesting is how
performance is judged and by whom, and what type of skill development is seen to be
applicable for academics? Similarly, the development of staff is a clear priority of the
majority of performance management systems. This raises questions as to how it is to be
funded, and who judges the development needed and in what areas?
The next stage of the research project is to revisit ANOA’s (2004) assertion of the importanceof alignment, integration and credibility to performance management techniques. Alignmenthas been broadly explored in the relationship between EBA clauses and statements ofstrategic intent and this has been found to be quite favourable. However, further research iswarranted in how these EBA clauses are implemented in universities. A statement of strategic
intent in itself may simply be rhetoric. The questions that require addressing are: how are
performance goals linked to strategic objectives and what objectives are they linked to? Thisis important in addressing Hoare’s (1995) assertion that appraisal schemes needed to beconsistent with the values of the scholarly purposes of the university. The appraisal process
and the performance objectives are clear indicators of such values.
The importance of process is linked to credibility. Again this needs further research.
Questions in this regard that come to mind are: Is the system accepted by academics? Are theindividual goals negotiated and accepted by staff? Is the ranking of performance performed
objectively? In regard to integration, the research can be expanded to examine performanceappraisal’s links to human resource planning, recruitment and selection, and succession
planning.
Through an examination of Australian universities EBAs we can see the different views ofand approaches to performance management. The increasing use of the performance
management system to reward academic staff in ways that were traditionally considered
standard working rights and conditions has been an important point uncovered in thisresearch. Even though universities in general state that they link performance management tostrategic objectives, and that performance management is developmental, and involves
feedback on performance and skill development, the next stage of the research will attempt tomatch such pronouncements to practice through examining policy and process.

References
ANAO (2004-5). Australian National Audit Office. Audit Report No 6, Canberra.
Barnes, A. (2006). Trade Unionism in 2005. Journal of Industrial Relations 48(3): 369- 384.
Barry, J., Chandler, J. and Clark, H. (2001). Between the ivory tower and the academic
assembly line, Journal of Management Studies, 38(1): 87-101.

28

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 2007, 32(2)Bishop J. (2007). Speech to Annual Conference of The Australian Higher Education Industrial
Association (AHEIA), 15 March 2007
http://www.dest.gov.au/ministers/media/bishop/2007/03/b00115032007.asp Date accessed
6/7/2007Bratton, J. & Gold, J. (1999). Human Resource Management. (2nd ed). Macmillan Business,
LondonConnell, J. & Nolan, J. (2004). Managing Performance: Modern Day Myth or a Game People
Play. International Journal of Employment Studies. 12,(1): 43-63.
Dunford, R. Bramble, T. & Littler, C., (1998). Gain and pain: The effects of Australian public
sector restructuring. Public Productivity and Management Review, 21(4): 386-402.
Fletcher, C. (2001). Performance appraisal and management: The developing research
agenda. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology. 74, 473-487.
Gabris, G. & Ihrke, K. (2000) Improving employee acceptance toward performance appraisal
and merit systems: The role of credible leadership Review of Public Personnel
Administration 20(1): 41-53.
Grant, H. (1998). Academic contests? Merit pay in Canadian universities. Industrial
Relations. 53(4):647- 665.
Hendry, C., Woodward, S. & Bradley, P. (2000) Performance rewards: cleaning out thestables. Human Resource Management Journal. 10 (3), 46-61.
Heneman, R.L. (1992). Merit Pay Linking Pay Increases to Performance Ratings, Readings
Mass. Addison Wesley.
Henson, S.L. (1994). No escape from judgement: appraisal and PRP in higher education,
Occasional Papers in Organisational Analysis. 2, University of Portsmouth,
Portsmouth
Hoare, D. (1995). Report of the committee of inquiry: Higher education management review.
Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra.
Holley, D. & Oliver, M. (2000). Pedagogy and the new power relationships. International
Journal of Management Education. 1(1): 11-22.
Karpin, D. (Chair) (1995). Enterprising Nation: Renewing Australia’s Managers to Meet the
Challenge of the Asia-Pacific Century. Report of the industry task force on leadershipand management skills. Canberra, Australian Government Printing Service.
Lawler, E. (1994). Performance management: The next generation. Compensation and
Benefits Review 26(3): 16-20.
Lazear, E.P. (1989). Pay Equality and Industrial Politics. Journal of Political Economy.
97(3): 561-580.
29

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 2007, 32(2)Longenecker, C.O. & Ludwig, D. (1990) Ethical dilemmas in performance appraisal. Journalof Business Ethics, 9, 961-969.
Lonsdale, A. (1990). Achieving institutional excellence through empowering staff: An
approach to performance management in higher education in Moses, I. (ed.) Higher
Education in the Late Twentieth Century: Reflections on a Changing System, Sydney,
Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australia.
Lonsdale, A. (1998). Performance appraisal, performance management and quality in higher
education: Contradictions, issues and guiding principles for the future. Australian
Journal of Education. 42 (3): 303–320.
McDonald, D & Smith, A. (1995). A proven connection: Performance management andbusiness results. Compensation and Benefits Review. 27(1):59-62
Meyer, H.H., Kay, F., & French, J.R. (1965). Split roles in performance appraisal. Harvard
Business Review. 43, 123-129.
Nankervis, A. & Compton, R. (2006). Performance management: Theory in practice? Asia
Pacific Journal of Human Resources. 44(1):83-101
O’Brien, M., Valadkhani, A., Waring, P. & Denniss, R. (2007). The Australian LabourMarket. Journal of Industrial Relations. 49 (3) 311-326
Parker. L. (2003). Performance Anxiety. HR Monthly. December.
Pearce, J.J & Porter, L. W. (1986). Employee responses to formal appraisal feedback. Journalof Applied Psychology. 71:211-218
Rheem, H. (1996). Performance management programs: Do they make a difference? Harvard
Business Review September – October: 3-4+.
Ryan, A. (1991). Separating developmental and managerialist reviews – Quarantines,
transitions and codes of practice, in Abbott, J and Lonsdale, A. (eds.) Academic Staff
Appraisal and Performance Management: The Australian Experience, Eastern Park,
Geelong, Institute of Educational Administration.
Simmons, J. ( 2002). An “expert witness” perspective on performance appraisal inuniversities and colleges. Employee Relations. 24(1): 86-100
Townley, B. (1990). The politics of appraisal: lessons of the introduction of appraisal into
UK universities. Human Resource Management Journal. 1 (2): 27-44
West, R. (1998). Higher Education Financing and Policy Review Committee. Learning forlife: final report: Review of higher education financing and policy. Higher Education
Financing and Policy Review Committee. Canberra, Department of Employment,
Education, Financing & Policy Review Committee.

30

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 2007, 32(2)Young, S. (2004). An Analysis of Outsourcing in the Victorian Public Health Sector,
Unpublished PhD thesis, Bowater School of Management and Marketing, Deakin
University, Melbourne, Australia.
Zacharatos, A., Barling, J & Iverson, R. (2005). High-performance work systems andoccupational safety. Journal of Applied Psychology. 90(1): 77-93.

31

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 2007, 32(2)University Academics’ Psychological Contracts in Australia and
New Zealand
RUPERT TIPPLES*, BRANKA KRIVOKAPIC-SKOKO** AND GRANTO’NEILL**
Abstract
This paper reviews Australasian academics’ psychological contracts and how they arechanging. While research has demonstrated that psychological contracts have considerable
impact upon workplace relations and employee performance, research into the formation,
content and effects of psychological contracts between academics and their employers has
been limited. In response to this relative gap in knowledge, the paper addresses: thedevelopment of psychological contract research; the formation and content of psychologicalcontracts by New Zealand and Australian academics; the effects, and potential management
utility, of psychological contracts; and, implications for current employment relations.
Examples are taken from the authors’ Australian and New Zealand research in the university
sector. Data were gathered through surveys, analysis of critical incidents and focus groups.
There has been continuous change and uncertainty in the sector. We argue that understanding
the formation and content of academics’ psychological contracts is crucial to understanding
and managing the work performance of academics.

Introduction: Changing Universities
As universities in New Zealand and Australian continue to change, it seems timely to reflect
upon academics’ psychological contracts and their effects upon university workplace relations
and performance. Changes and pressures associated with marketisation and creeping
managerialism (see, for example: Curtis and Mathewman, 2005; Marginson and Considine,2000), are having powerful effects upon individual academics and their universities, and suchchanges powerfully impact the formation, content and experience of academics’
psychological contracts.
Since the 1990s, Universities in New Zealand and Australia not only followed the
managerialist and market-oriented revolution so evident in the public sector, they have*

Rupert Tipples is a Senior Lecturer in Employment Relations, Agriculture and Life Sciences, Division Lincoln

University, Canterbury, New Zealand**

Branka Krivokapic-Skoko and Grant O’Neill are Senior Lecturers in the Faculty of Business, Charles Sturt

University, Bathurst, NSW, Australia.

32

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 2007, 32(2)become increasingly responsive to government and public service demands. Throughincreased audit and performance management practices, universities and individual academics
are ever more accountable for outcomes that they have less ability to determine. Government
funding comes with ever more strings attached, and university managers now commonly
apply conditions and controls as they allocate funds internally. More rigorous benchmarking,auditing, and administrative compliance, are often experienced negatively as managerialist
imperatives rather than means to support pursuit of quality research and teaching outcomes.
The Performance Based Research Fund (PBRF) in New Zealand, and the introduction of the
Research Quality Framework (RQF) in Australia are, for example, strongly indicative of thegrowing audit of, and control over, the direction and outcomes of universities and theiracademics. The associated compulsion to increase ‘quality’ research publications in a context
of ongoing academic work intensification is adding greatly to the pressure academics feel.
However, despite this increased responsiveness and accountability, universities, andacademics, are regularly criticised for being out-of-touch with, or unresponsive to, the needsof industry and clients.
Many of the changes and problems that New Zealand and Australian universities andacademics have experienced have also been experienced by UK universities and academics.
As in the UK (see Jarvis 2001), New Zealand and Australian academics are working longer
hours, experiencing greater stress, and have declining morale. Governments and industry see
universities as a resource to be utilised in the service of the economic needs of the nation.
Once alien to universities, we now see greater strategic planning, cost reduction, applicationof user pays and ‘client’ orientation principles. University priorities and practices that were
often linked to government policies of growth and access in higher education are rapidly
shifting to support strategic reorientations that emphasise diversification and differentiation. A
truly worrying paradox at the heart of much of the change has been the decline in government
funding of higher education at a time when knowledge and learning are deemed to be more
central to work and life ever before (Jarvis, 2001).
Such changes reflect, and have contributed to the emergence of, the increasingly dominantview of university education as a matter of private investment rather than a public good
(Jarvis, 2001). Further, Australian research (Winter and Sarros, 2000) has indicated that many
academics perceive that the important cultural and ethical contributions that universities maketo society (Coady, 2000) are being undermined. The PBRF and RQF are, arguably, indicativeof the further demotion of teaching and learning relative to a more narrowly focused research
agenda. Staff/student ratios are at all time highs in many universities and value conflict
between principles and practices associated with marketisation and managerialism and thosetraditionally associated with a commitment to teaching, learning and scholarship has becomea well noted problem experienced by academics (see, for example: Winter and Sarros, 2000;
Marginson and Considine, 2000; Jarvis, 2001).
Evident in innumerable management and leadership initiatives, and growing top down
control, universities are less collegiate and more bureaucratic and corporate. Lewis,
Marginson and Snyder (2005: 62) note the emergence of “a university climate increasingly
dominated by accountability and performance-oriented decrees from the university
executive”. Collegial governance and academic autonomy continue the decline that was noted
as a matter of great concern in 2000 (Marginson and Considine, 2000). The language andpractice of business has become the language and practice of university leaders and managers,
33

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 2007, 32(2)further adding to the ongoing erosion of professional control within universities (Curtis andMathewman, 2005). More powerful administrators and managers are holding faculties,
departments and individual academics more accountable for outcomes.
As universities have become more reliant upon private sources of income, commercialisationand competition for funds and students continues to grow (Abbott, 2006). ‘Elite’ universities
are busy pursuing strategic benefits from marshalling their considerable resources in acompetitive market for research and teaching funds, and funded and fee-paying students,
while some universities face a very uncertain future. Add to this industrial relations
environments that have seen many university workplace conditions and protections stripped
away, and increasingly rigorous performance management of academics may see greaternumbers of relative ‘poor performers’ facing redundancy.
It is in the context of such change and uncertainty within New Zealand and Australian
universities that the following paper addresses the formation, content and effects ofacademics’ psychological contracts. We argue that in this era of diminished funding, greater
competition, and heightened hierarchy and accountability, the content and effects ofpsychological contracts are critically important for academics and universities. We initiallyaddress key conceptualisations and prior studies of the psychological contract, before
focusing more specifically upon empirical research into psychological contracts within
academia. Through exploration of the formation, content and effects of the psychologicalcontracts of academics at Lincoln University, New Zealand and Charles Sturt University,
Australia, the potential of the psychological contract as a means of understanding, andmanaging, contemporary academic workplace relations and performance will be established.

Psychological Contracts
The employment relationship can be conceived of as having two components: the legal
contract of service, which covers the legal relations between the employer and the employee;
and the psychological contract, which covers the behavioural relations between the parties(Tipples, 1996). The legal obligations of this relationship are observable and quantifiable
outcomes, while the psychological expectations are invisible, but nonetheless real.
There have been a variety of definitions of the psychological contract since the term was firstused by Chris Argyris in 1960 (Conway and Briner, 2005) with a central area of debate being
to do with whether a psychological contract should be understood as a mutual agreement
between two parties’ perceptions of their mutual obligations (Herriot et al. 1997) or whether
it can be more rightly understood as a subjective construct based on an individual employee’s
perceptions of an actual agreement (Robinson and Rousseau, 1994). It was based on social
contract and social exchange theories, and the idea of reciprocity (Roehling, 1997). Levinson
et al. (1963, p. 21) defined it as follows:“The psychological contract is a series of mutual expectations of which the parties tothe relationship may not themselves be even dimly aware but which nonethelessgovern their relationship to each other.”34

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 2007, 32(2)Research on psychological contracts has been largely survey based, with the use ofincreasingly sophisticated designs and quantitative analysis techniques, particularly
researchers following the lead provided in America by Denise Rousseau and colleagues,
or based on scenario methodologies, critical incidents, diary studies, interviews or casestudies (Conway and Briner, 2005). From the earliest research there has been a focus
on the multi-facetted advantages of the construct.
Levinson et al. (1963) distinguished managers’ roles as preventive agents, diagnostic
agents, remedial agents, and iatrogenic agents (a medical term which refers tosymptoms or illnesses caused by the physician himself in the course of his treatment of
the patient) and promoted the psychological contract as a helpful managerial tool. Later
Lorsch advocated the psychological contract construct and highlighted its diagnostic
and therapeutic uses for managers. (Lorsch, 1979). By September 2006 some 2680
publications on psychological contracts were listed in a search of the term on Google
Scholar. From an overview of those papers Tipples and Verry (2006) recently
suggested that useful guidance for managers is offered by some of the earlier researchon the subject (e.g. by Levinson et al., 1963), as we seek to understand employment
relationships. Such research focuses more on expectations than current researchers’
fixation on the more transactional aspects of contracts, obligations and what theemployee alone believes. It picks up on the more need focused facets of psychologicalcontracts, originally highlighted by Levinson et al. (1963), more recently re-emphasisedby Meckler, Drake and Levinson (2003), and specifically distinguished fromRousseau’s position by Conway and Briner (2005).
Psychological contract research was slow to get underway in New Zealand andAustralia with few mentions of the construct in papers before 1995. Since then, up to
five percent of papers mentioning the construct have also included the terms Australia
or New Zealand. Psychological contracts are particularly important in shedding light on
the effects of many modern management policies using a more transactional approach tocontract such as forced redundancies, performance management systems, the increasinguse of temporary workers and because of the decreasing power of unions and the greater
diversity of the workplace (Guest, 1998).
Various typologies have been developed in order to categorise the vast range of contractelements listed and measured in the literature (Thomas and Anderson, 1998; Kickul
and Lester, 2001; Guest and Conway, 2002; Thompson and Bunderson, 2003). One
such typology that has dominated the literature on the psychological contracts is thetransactional-relational distinction. Transactional contracts involve highly specificexchanges describing perceptions that employment obligations are more short-term,
work content based and less relational (Rousseau, 1990; 1995). Relational contracts, on
the other hand, are concerned with ongoing relationship, and so lead to the creation ofless defined, socioemotional obligations, which may be characterised by attributes suchas trust and commitment (Shore and Tetrick, 1994).
Another typology discussed by Bunderson (2001) is particularly pertinent to thisresearch. Bunderson suggested that the psychological contract between a professionaland his/her employing organisation is shaped by professional and administrative work
ideologies. In this ideologically pluralistic work setting, the obligations of the
35

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 2007, 32(2)administrative psychological contract bump up against the ideologies of professional
work. The administrative role of the organisation is to be a coordinated and efficientbureaucratic system organised to pursue common goals as well as a competitive
business with market legitimacy and presence. The role of the organisation as aprofessional body is to be a collegial society to further the profession and to apply suchprofessional expertise for the benefit of the community and wider society (Bunderson,2001). Those contrasting ideologies describe much of the academic work in auniversity.
Other research which has shed some light on the murkier conceptual areas of thepsychological contract include Sutton and Griffin’s (2004) longitudinal study of new
entrants to the professional group of occupational therapists. They sought to clarify theconceptual distinctions between several key concepts, distinguishing between pre-entry
expectations, post-entry experiences and psychological contract violations. They found
met expectations, as measured by the interactions between pre-entry expectations andpost-entry experiences, were not a predictor of violations of the psychological contract.
Nor were they a predictor of levels of job satisfaction, when psychological contract
violations were taken into account. The met-expectations hypothesis (Wanous et al.,1992), that unmet expectations result in job dissatisfaction and consequently turnover ofstaff was not supported. Guest (1998) had argued that the distinction between
psychological contract violation as shown in unmet obligations and unmet expectations
was unclear and perhaps more of a matter of degree reflecting the seriousness of the
break and the strength of the reactions to it.
Recent research indicates that elaboration of the psychological contract construct has
not developed much (Conway and Briner, 2005; Cullinane and Dundon, 2006). There
was not much empirical research in earlier years (1960-1988), for which reasons are notdifficult to suggest. The psychological contract is dynamic - it is continuously changing,as Herriot put it:“At any one point in time we can take a snapshot of the contract, but that’s
merely a fix on a moving target. Organisations’ expectations change and so do
individuals’ - which is why a contract that meets some of both today may meetfew of either in a year or two’s time” (Herriot 1992: 7).
Also, an individual may have a number of psychological contracts at the same time,perhaps as many as the social roles he/she occupies and may have different
psychological contracts with various agents of the employing organisation. Further,those individual psychological contracts may be mutually incompatible and unclear(Guest, 1998). Consequently researchers have found focusing on in-depth empiricalinvestigation is both time consuming and difficult.

Researching Psychological Contracts within Academia
Empirical research on psychological contracts has developed significantly during thepast decade (Coyle-Shapiro and Conway, 2005; Freese and Schalk, 1996; Cavannaugh
and Noe, 1999; Turnley and Feldman 1999). However, the empirical research on
36

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 2007, 32(2)psychological contracts within academia has been very limited. It is represented by thestudies of Dabos and Rousseau (2004), Newton (2002), and the work at Australasian
universities initiated in the middle 1990s (Tipples and Krivokapic-Skoko, 1997; Tipples
and Jones, 1998) and recently renewed by O’Neill, Krivokapic-Skoko, Foundling(2007).
Dabos and Rousseau (2004) examined mutuality and reciprocity in psychologicalcontracts by surveying the academics employed by a leading research-oriented school ofbioscience in Latin America. Employees and their employers demonstrated convergencein their perception regarding the terms of their psychological contracts. This mutual
understanding of the obligations resulted in positive outcomes for both researchers(career advancement and promotion) and the employers (increased research
productivity). This is only one of the few empirical studies on psychological contracts
which tried to expand beyond the research focusing on the downside of psychologicalcontracts (such as violations, low morale, high turnover) to investigate the positive sideof mutually beneficial contracts. In a slightly different context Newton (2002) used theconcept of psychological contracts to discuss collegiality, professional accountability,
reciprocity and mutual trust at a UK college of higher education. Based on in-depth
empirical research, the author argued that a lack of reward and recognition for academic
work as perceived by staff, can be explained also by not taking into account theexistence of psychological contracts. At the same time, knowledge about the contents
and dynamics of the academics’ psychological contracts may be very instrumental inmaintaining staff morale and commitment.
Similarly, the empirical research done by Tipples and Krivokapic-Skoko (1996; 1997)
at Lincoln University, New Zealand, indicated that the psychological contracts at that
institution were in a very poor state. In terms of the empirical assessment the authors
used a number of different approaches to explore the individual psychological contracts
at the University. Besides qualitative interviews and the use of documentary sources,
the authors conducted a questionnaire survey of academic colleagues to explore the staff
members’ beliefs and expectations about their relations with the University.
While analyzing only the employee’s side - academics at the University – the research
identified low morale and disappointment amongst the academics. Generally, Lincoln
academics were not satisfied with the extent to which the University had met what wereperceived as its promised obligations. That dissatisfaction was consequently associatedwith a low level of job satisfaction. As shown in Figure 1 academics believed that the
University owed them above all else “Job Satisfaction”. “Loyalty” and “Work outside
ordinary Office hours” were the most important factors academics believed they owed
to the University. Apart from low job satisfaction, the academics identified careerdevelopment, payment, long term job security and promotion as common areas forviolation of the psychological contract. More specifically, the University respondents
noted matters relating to promotions (26.0%), research and resources (17.0%), and weak
management support (19.0%) in which the issues of confidentiality and honesty were
singled out.

37

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 2007, 32(2)In terms of the obligations facing employees, the content of psychological contracts
appeared to be concerned with the traditional issues of quantity and quality of work
done, time applied to that work and loyalty to the employer. Obligations of theemployer to employees centred around providing a suitable work environment,
supportive management, appropriate recognition for special achievements, adequate
consultation, fairness and job security. Employer/managers and employees had different
views on the most salient features of psychological contracts. The differences between
the University employer/manager group and the employee group in terms of theirperceptions of the mutual obligations, promises, and expectations forming the reciprocal
exchanges of psychological contracts was a continued cause for concern for bothgroups, with a lack of match causing unstable psychological contracts and employment
relationships.
FIGURE 1. Academic psychological contacts at a New Zealand University

What the University owes theWhat the academics owe theacademics

University

Job satisfaction

Loyalty

Career development

Work outside ordinary office hours

More pay

Volunteering to do non-required jobs

Long term job security

Willing to accept transfer within theuniversity

Promotion
Spending a minimum period of time at
Support with personal problems

the University

Source: Tipples & Krivokapic-Skoko (1997: 110)
In terms of how psychological contracts were evolving, more than a half of the respondents
believed that their relationship with the University had changed over the last ten years andseventy four percent believed it would change significantly over the next ten years.
Administrative issues were the major concern, followed by the greater demands on academic
staff with decreased resources and rewards, which also included promotion related issues.
Another theme which was also apparent, as a result of violation, was the increase of auditing
type arrangements, and the development of a ‘them/us’ antagonistic culture, which referred to
an increased administrative workload and relation with the bureaucracy at the University(Tipples and Krivokapic-Skoko, 1997).
Later, the content of Lincoln academics psychological contracts were explored by a different
method which better reflected the two sides of the employment relationship in universities.
The alternative research method was based on critical incidents (Herriot et al.,1997; Tipples
38

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 2007, 32(2)and Jones, 1998). Then examination of the content of academics’ psychological contracts in a
new and totally fresh way was possible. Comparison of the results with those obtained
formerly in 1996 with Rousseau et al.’s methods was then also possible (Tipples andKrivokapic-Skoko, 1997; Tipples and Jones, 1998). There was a degree of consistency
between the results. In 1996 academic employees believed that the University owed them
above all else “Job Satisfaction”. In 1997 the major component of the psychological contract
was imputed as being concerned with the Work Environment. The Rousseau measure did not
differentiate between the components of Job Satisfaction, but data were also collected fromeach respondent for the Job Descriptive Index (JDI) (Smith, Kendall and Hulin, 1969). One ofthose JDI elements related to Satisfaction with Work, which was significantly lower than theSatisfaction with Work of an equivalent group of US academics (Ormsby and Watts, 1991).
Further, 94 percent of the incidents cited, which were classified in the Work Environment
class, were concerned with the University treating its employees in a way that was below that
expected. So the two sets of results seemed consistent in that respect.
“Loyalty” and “Work outside ordinary Office hours” were the most important factors
academics believed they owed to the University in 1996. Hours and Loyalty were the second
and third major components of individual’s psychological contracts derived from criticalincidents cited by the employee group studied and first and third of those cited by employers.
The weakness of Rousseau et al.’s research appeared to be its failure to identify the quality
and quantity of employees’ work as major components of individuals’ psychologicalcontracts. Rousseau et al. developed their questions from talking to a group of Human
Resource and Personnel managers. Apparently they did not consult real employees and haveappeared to leave out the obvious, causing doubt as to whether Rousseau et al.’s questions
were really as adequate as they were thought to be for elucidating the content of individuals’
psychological contracts.
Herriot, Manning and Kidd’s critical incident approach provided a way to assess the content
of psychological contracts de novo. Utilisation of Rousseau’s questions was not appropriate
without substantial pre-testing to discover if they were applicable to the New Zealandacademic situation, and then only after appropriate modification. In terms of the obligations
facing employees, the content of psychological contracts appears to be concerned with thetraditional issues of quantity and quality of work done, time applied to that work and loyalty
to the employer. Obligations of the employer centred around providing a suitable work
environment, supportive management, appropriate recognition for special achievements,
adequate consultation, fairness and job security. Employer/managers and employees had
different views on the most salient features of psychological contracts, but there was no
consistency to these differences. In 1998 the differences between the University
employer/manager group and the employee group in terms of their perceptions of the mutual
obligations, promises, and expectations forming the reciprocal exchanges of psychologicalcontracts were a continued cause for concern for both groups. There was a lack of match
causing unstable psychological contracts and employment relationships. For both parties thiswas undesirable and a concern for future job performance.
One decade after the results of the Lincoln University study were published, another study
explored psychological contracts established by academics at an Australian University(O’Neill, Krivokapic-Skoko, & Foundling, 2007). Using a focus group technique the authors
tried to elicit insights and subjective interpretations of the psychological contracts and the39

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 2007, 32(2)consequences of perceived breach*. It is one of the few empirical studies which has used afocus group approach to understand how academics interpret the psychological contract. As
the literature suggests (Turnley and Feldman, 1999; Freese and Schalk, 1996; Guzzo andNoonan, 1994) the greater use of idiographic methods to assess individuals’ psychologicalcontracts would be appropriate in order to access and understand the varied individual
experience of the psychological contract. The focus group questions, along with probes whenappropriate, encouraged the academics to discuss: (a) what they feel they bring to their workthat is not explicitly stated in the employment contract; (b) what they expect or believe theiremployer has promised in return; (c) an identification of how the University has fulfilled or
exceeded these expectations; (d) how the University has failed to fulfill these promises, and(e) the responses to the psychological contract violation.
In terms of the empirical results the academics cited a range of personal qualities as a defining
aspect of what they bring to the University, consistently commenting that their work involves
their whole person, their creativity, integrity, values and experience. Some of the categories ofcontractual elements presented in earlier studies (Thomas and Anderson, 1998; Kickul andLester, 2001; Guest and Conway, 2002; Thompson and Bunderson, 2003) failed to encompass
the breadth of elements the academics named because the academics view their work
responsibilities in a much wider context than their immediate institutional environment.
The empirical research identified four key foci of academic responsibility that greatly
influenced the formation and effects of their psychological contracts and these were: theuniversity, the discipline, society, and students (Figure 2).
Academics join the university with a strong work ethic and this is evidenced by many
comments relating to a willingness to work outside ‘normal’ working hours, and be flexible intaking on various roles and to engage emotionally with their work:‘. . . there’s this attitude amongst a lot of staff I find that, a willingness to put a hugeamount of work into what they’re doing and to take it very seriously.’‘. . .a willingness to work beyond the stated hours and a willingness to take on
Faculty and University roles that are not sustained in one’s duty statement and thataren’t remunerated.’
The academics feel that the breath of knowledge they bring to their work is an important
contribution to the University. It was consistently stated that disciplinary knowledge, teaching
and industry knowledge and experience, and industry contacts and networks, are highly
valuable, but are not equally recognised by management:.

The empirical data as presented in (O’Neill et al. 2007) were generated through three focus groups withacademics employed by the Faculty of Business, Charles Sturt University, Australia in May 2006. Twenty six
academics (excluding the researchers) participated across the three focus groups. The focus groups were of theideal size, being comprised of six to ten academics. While a limitation of focus groups can be the tendency forparticipants to deviate from their usual thinking and behaviour in order to ‘fit-in’ with focus group norms(Kenyon, 2004), those three focus groups of academics were relatively homogenous in terms of group ofparticipants who regularly work with each other , and thereby minimising the effects of this tendency.

40

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 2007, 32(2)FGIURE 2. Academics’ beliefs about what they bring to the University: A case study ofan Australian University

Discipline
desire for learning
passion for discipline area
broad knowledge basecreativity
networks/industry links

Society

Students

desire to make society a better placedesire to make a difference

motivation-to share experienceand teachcivility
desire to convey importance of social
justice/ethics issues
challenge to the status quo
integrity

Academics

commitment toteaching/students
openness- willingness to
discuss ideas

University
loyaltywork ethic
timidity/complianceactive links to professions through professional organizationscommitment the University and its successenthusiasm

flexibility

Source: (O’Neill et al., 2007)
Conscience, personal ethics, integrity and a desire to make society a better place were strong
motivators for staff and represented commonly discussed aspects of personal qualities that
staff felt they were bringing to their academic work. Motivation and enthusiasm were
frequently discussed in terms of ‘making a difference’, ‘making society a better place’, andgenerally expressing a desire to advance social justice and ethics.
41

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 2007, 32(2)‘There’s an ideological underpinning of what some of us are all about. I’m a person
who believes in working towards a fairer society that we live in and .. you’re doing
something that’s worthwhile to society as whole.’
Similar sentiments to those noted above were expressed in relation to facilitating andenhancing student learning through academics giving of themselves personally, sharing theirwealth of experience to stimulate and encourage students:‘What the students like is that you are actually sharing a part of yourself with them’.
These responses demonstrate that it would be limiting to attempt to understand the formationof the psychological contract only in terms of what the academic feels they owe theuniversity. The commitment and concerns of academics are often directed more toward thestudents and society with the institution providing a means of serving those higher goals. Ifthey are frustrated with unmet expectations and promises, it is likely that these frustrations
will occur in areas that impinge upon their ability to fulfil their personal mission of attaining
these higher goals.
Building upon perceived promises of mutual exchange the academics spoke at length
regarding what they were expecting of the University in return for what they bring to theirjob. A common theme that emerged from the statements made regarding employer
responsibilities is that academics want to be recognised and treated as professionals. Much of
the discussion centred around the expectations of leadership, fairness and transparency inpromotion and recognition of one’s personal commitment to the profession, the university andthe students. The key themes that emerged from discussion of what the academics expectedfrom the university were (Figure 3):
Beyond the more tangible benefits that would normally be associated with employer
responsibilities, employees expect good leadership and sound management skills, forexample:‘What I expect of [the university] in return, I expect the senior executive of [theuniversity] to all have qualifications in management or they can’t take on a position at
the senior levels of the university’.
Issues related to leadership such as trust, clear and honest communication, transparency,
advocacy, individual consideration and respect were prominent throughout the conversations.
Generally, there was a realistic acceptance of the constraints within which management must
make decisions, and that such constraints can lead to broken promises and failure to meet
expectations from staff. What was not accepted, and this raised considerable emotion, wasfailure to address such situations in an honest manner and communicate outcomes effectively:‘Part of the transparency is the explanation for decisions that are made, clear
justification and reasons why the decision was made rather than ‘this is the decision’and nothing else.’

42

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 2007, 32(2)Commitment to teaching and the desire to contribute to society provide powerful motivators
for academic staff and the need for academic freedom and job discretion were linked to thesemotivations. Staff expressed a strong expectation of autonomy, job discretion and inclusion indecision making and this was related to their professional identity:‘There’s an expectation that our professionalism will be respected, that we’re notgoing to be treated as if we’ve got nothing to add and that we’re just automatons in
the machine’‘Fairness in all things’ was an expectation consistently expressed by the academics, which
included: equitable pay, impartiality, fairness in promotion, consistency in applying rules,
acceptance of union involvement, reciprocity, and an expectation that family and outsidecommitments should not cause disadvantage.
The expectation of recognition for effort and achievement was another important theme. This
goes beyond the desire for a fair promotion and remuneration system, and addresses a basic
need to be affirmed, appreciated and acknowledged by others:‘Recognition and acknowledgement particularly when you go beyond …the normal
call of duty which I think we do frequently’.
Academics felt the institution was obligated to provide opportunities for development by wayof training, provision of teaching and administrative opportunities, support for continuing
education, and promotion. The connection between what is given to one’s work and what is
expected back is evident from the frequency of responses regarding the expectation offlexibility from the university. Allowance for a healthy work-life balance, and the provision ofa pleasant social, physical and emotional work environment were other factors listed.
There was not a lot of discussion about pay but any mention of payments and security waswith regard to issues of fairness and career development:‘… [we expect] a competitive salary structure that’s flexible again with regard to therecognition of experience and knowledge gained prior to the University.’
Key areas where the University was considered to have fulfilled or exceeded its implicit
promises of employment included support in such areas as research, outside activities,
training and development and with regard to personal and emotional issues. While the support
was appreciated, staff recognised that it was a reciprocal relationship:‘I think it’s a recognition that they are willing to do something for you to help you out,that you will pay them back [agreement from group] tenfold down the track . . . it
makes it sound like an exchange relationship but still I think it is more than just that ‘
Flexibility was another highly valued feature of working at the university:‘[Flexibility in working hours] is a further degree of freedom beyond just theacademic freedom’43New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 2007, 32(2)FIGURE 3: Academic’s beliefs about what the University owes them: A case study of anAustralian University

Leadership &Management

Empowerment

Payments &University

Fairness

Work

CareerRecognition

Source: (O’Neill et al., 2007)
This flexibility was valued in practice and as an indication of trust:‘There’s an awful lot of trust there . . . as long as [the head of school] knows that hecan contact me and I’m always logged on with my emails etc there seems to be a real
sense of trust there that he knows that if I’m not physically there in my office, that
doesn’t necessarily mean that I’m not getting the work done so I feel really really
lucky to have so much flexibility because my kids are very young at the moment.’
Flexibility and trust are associated with academic freedom and so are valued as recognition of
the professional status of the employees. The belief in freedom and autonomy was further
highlighted by the sorts of work conditions most highly valued by the academics:‘I think everybody does [appreciate the low levels of surveillance], I think there is adegree of trust and obviously there are limits and boundaries and having set those theuniversity is very relaxed about it’44New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 2007, 32(2)Although many examples of where the university had fulfilled or exceeded expectations werereported, it was obvious that this was not the complete picture. Even the groups who spoke
more positively about their psychological contracts had much that they wanted to speak about
with regard to when these contracts had been violated.
Different groups had different emphases but the most striking consistency was theunprompted repetition of the phrase ‘changing the goalposts’ at each of the focus groups. The
final stages of the focus group discussions explored perceived sources and implications ofcontract violations. There were many references to dysfunctional aspects of the organisational
culture such as: competitiveness, bureaucratic centralised control, short-term focus, and lackof customer (i.e. student) focus.
‘We have talked about who are our customers and who we are building relationships
with. I have seen [the university] do this and once again I expect it happens at otherinstitutions that the student are not the main focus and I think it’s a pity.’‘Its part of the whole thing about being a teaching university or research university . .
.And that teaching university is about the students and research is about government
policy research funds. . and students are at the far end of the stakeholders.’
Some felt that the need for greater research output did not necessarily have such a negative
impact on teaching, and that the formulation of clearer strategy, supported by fair andequitable rewards for staff, could do a great deal to reconcile these seemingly competing
forces. Further, while so many spoke of a need for change, an observation was made that
academics can, in some respects, be unintentionally complicit in sustaining the culture andpriorities they criticise because of their broader commitment to the discipline and the students.
Another important area of psychological contract violation was when the expectation of being
treated as a professional was met with the seemingly bureaucratic requirements of the
University’s administrative system:‘You’re expecting that you bring in a certain amount of professionalism but it’s
shoved in your face to a certain extent because of the bureaucracy. . . They are trying
to treat us as an homogenous group who maybe are not capable of doing somethingfrom an administrative perspective.’
Administrative rules and regulations constituted one of the two key issues that were at theheart of most of the reports of psychological contract violation. Many academics perceived an
encroachment of administrative systems stressing compliance, conformity, rationality andefficiency upon their practice as academic professionals who require flexibility, personal
discretion and autonomy. For some, a bureaucratic juggernaut was deemed to be a threat tothe core competence of the University in teaching excellence and customer focus.
Academics’ responses to the violation of their psychological contracts corresponded very
closely to the EVLN (Exit, Voice, Loyalty, Neglect) framework as developed by Turnley andFeldman (1999). Consistent with Turnley and Feldman’s (1999) findings, empirical researchdone by (O’Neil et al., 2006) suggested that situational factors strongly moderated therelationship between psychological contract violations and exit. For example, many45

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 2007, 32(2)academics expressed feelings of being trapped in their work situation due to geographicalfactors and limited job mobility. Further, many academics expressed feelings of goodwill
towards, and commitment to, immediate supervisors. In the context of contract violations,they were making separations between the University and particular agents of its authority.
An important finding was that the academics possessed a strong continuance commitment(Allen and Meyer, 1990) which is not solely explained by the costs of resigning. This meansthat some of the ill-effects of poor psychological contracts could, in effect, be masked in the
short term because the exit response to psychological contract violation is not strongly
evident.
More broadly, the negative effects of the psychological contract violation were shown to be
mediated by the nature of the academic work that involved a commitment to the students evenwhen frustration with the institution was high:‘there is that third dimension which plays a huge part in [the] psychological contract
with the students. . . our responsibility and caring for the students that locks us intothat contract …’
The most frequently cited responses to psychological contract violation were loss of loyalty
and neglect behaviours. Some said that the decreased loyalty was resulting in their ‘giving up’
and feeling helpless. Others referred to behaviour that saw them less likely to engage in extrarole behaviour:‘You concentrate more on your own interests instead of the broader interests than you
have in the past.’‘You lose commitment and you withdraw.’
Increased neglect, particularly decreased attention to teaching quality, was a prominent topic
of discussion:‘It goes back to equity theory of motivation . . . You’ll do one of two things. You’lleither withdraw your labour totally . . . or you will slow down …’
However, for some academics the violation event gave them impetus to adapt to the new
system and even enjoyment of the opportunities it offered. These adaptations to the newpriorities and demands of the University support Herriot & Pemberton’s (1996) observationthat internal and external catalysts during an organisational restructure lead to renegotiations
in which the contract evolves. The adaptation response was also related to the professionalismof the academic in that when loyalty to the institution was slipping, loyalty to the discipline
and the commitment to students seems to take effect:‘. . . very few academics slacken off because of their commitment to the students andbecause of their professionalism [agreement from group] so it doesn’t matter how
badly they’re treated, they will still perform close to their optimal level and if they
can’t do this they then leave.’46

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 2007, 32(2)Whatever the reaction to contract violation, there is no doubt that the emotional experiencecan be extreme. Many academics gave considerable emphasis to their deep regret and pain
over violations that can be masked by the variety responses taken by employees:‘. . .there has been, on the part of the University, some fairly egregious departuresfrom equity in the promotion process . . . It has wreaked havoc with the morale of alot people here some of whom I know have moved on as a result and those who havestayed on and coped with it because of their professionalism or had no where else togo.’
The academics further articulated how they perceive the sources and implications of thecontract violation. There were many references to dysfunctional aspects of the organisational
culture such as: competitiveness; bureaucratic centralized control; short-term focus; and, lackof customer (i.e. student) focus.
‘[The University] has a culture where it does not give itself time to think, they are sopushed for making money that they don’t give themselves time to think about what they
are doing or what direction they are taking, how they are doing it and the impact it ishaving on people.’

Conclusions
As noted earlier, changes in the context and conditions of academic work in Australasia(Curtis and Matthewman, 2005) have resulted from increased pressures associated withmanagerialism, greater external and internal accountability, tighter funding and a higher levelof scrutiny by funding bodies. The challenges faced by university leaders and managers haveincreased considerably and academics are experiencing flow-on effects.
Building upon the empirical evidence gathered from these two studies, this paper has revealed
the content and key elements of the psychological contracts formed by academics within
Australasian universities. Our empirical research has shown that the professional aspects ofcommitment to making a contribution to society, their discipline, and student learning
frequently play a prominent part in the development, and moderation of, the academics’
psychological contracts. The academics very strongly indicated that they have a professional
responsibility and spoke to a significant social role which effectively extends beyond theboundaries of the psychological contracts they establish with the university, which in New
Zealand is even enshrined in legislation, where academics are to be the critic and conscienceof society (Education Act 1989, Bridgman, 2007).
It is critical for the university and the academics to be sensitive to possible differences in
expectations, since unrealised expectations may result in de-motivation, decreased
commitment, increased turnover, and loss of trust in the organisation. As Turnley andFeldman (1999) found, our empirical research suggests that situational factors strongly
moderate the relationship between psychological contract violations and exit, but not therelationship between the violation and voice, neglect behaviour and decreased levels of
loyalty to the university. That noted, the academics possessed strong continuancecommitment (Allen and Meyer, 1990) and this is not solely explained by the costs ofresigning.
47

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 2007, 32(2)Indeed, our survey and focus group research indicated that the commitment of academics totheir students and society moderated the effects of many psychological contract violations.
Perceived loss of professional autonomy and control, and work intensification, noted by theacademics did not result in withdrawal of labour. Clearly, this offers opportunities touniversity managers as they seek to effect more change, however, our research also points tothe dangers of academics being pushed too hard and too far. Violations of the psychologicalcontract always come at a cost, and while for now it seems that it is the academics who arepaying most, the potential costs of further violations to students, universities, and wider
society need to be considered in the rush by universities to “do more with less”.
In conclusion, it is evident that academics both at Lincoln University and Charles Sturt
University deemed their psychological contracts to be in a poor state. They faced similar
problems and expressed similar concerns. While low morale and distress were key issues,
many discussants expressed hope, and a degree of optimism, that the situation could be
improved. After ten years of restructurings at Lincoln University it is not certain that
academics there would support that view. Dabos and Rousseau (2004) found that mutual
understanding of reciprocal obligations resulted in positive outcomes for employees and theemployers. This research indicates that many of the detrimental effects of psychologicalcontract violation could be ameliorated, and even avoided, by ensuring that the mutual
expectations or perceptions of ‘obligations’ of the universities and academics match (Tipples,
1996).

Acknowledgements
Many unnamed academics helped us with our research and we are grateful to them for theirefforts and sharing their academic lives, values and aspirations with us. We hope we have notmisrepresented them. We would especially like to thank Marcelle Foundling for her
contribution to the focus groups conducted at Charles Sturt University.

References
Abbott, M. (2006). Competition and Reform of the New Zealand Tertiary Education Sector.
Journal of Education Policy. 21 (3): 367-387.
Allen, N.J. & Meyer, J.P. (1990). The Measurement and Antecedents of Affective,
Continuance and Normative Commitment to the Organization. Journal of Occupational
Psychology. 63:1-18.
Bridgman, T. (2007). Assassins in Academia? New Zealand Academics as “Critic andConscience of Society”. New Zealand Sociology. 22(1): 126-144.
Bunderson, J. S. (2001). How Work Ideologies Shape Psychological Contracts of Professional
Employees: Doctors Responses to Perceived Breach. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 22:
717-741.
48

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 2007, 32(2)Cavanaugh, M. & Noe, R. (1999). Antecedents and Consequences of Relational Componentsof the New Psychological Contract. Journal of Organisational Behaviour. 20( 3): 328 - 351.
Coady, T. (2000). Why Universities Matter, Allen and Unwin: Melbourne.
Coyle-Shapiro, J. A-M., & Conway, N. (2005). Exchange Relationships: Examining
Psychological Contracts and Perceived Organizational Support. Journal of Applied
Psychology. 90 (4): 774-781.
Conway, N.C. & Briner, R.B. (2005). Understanding Psychological Contracts at Work – A
Critical Evaluation of Theory and Research, O.U.P.: Oxford.
Cullinane, N. and Dundon, T. (2006). The Psychological Contract: A Critical Review.
International Journal of Management Reviews. 8(2): 113 – 129.
Curtis, B., and Matthewman, S. (2005). The Managed University: The PBRF, Its Impacts andStaff Attitudes. New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations. 30 (2): 1-17.
Dabos, G.E. & Rousseau, D.M. (2004). Mutuality and Reciprocity in the PsychologicalContracts of Employees and Employers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89 (1): 52-72.
Davis, H., Evans, T. & Hickey, C. (2006). A Knowledge-based Economy Landscape:Implications for Tertiary Education and Research Training in Australia. Journal of Higher
Education Policy and Management. 28 (3): 231-244.
Freese, C., & Schalk, R. (1996). Implications and Differences in Psychological Contracts for
Human Resource Management. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology. 5(4): 501-509.
Guest, D. (1998). Is the Psychological Contract Worth Taking Seriously? Journal of
Organizational Behavior. 19: 649-664.
Guest, D.E. & Conway, N. (2002), Communicating the Psychological Contract: An Employer
Perspective. Human Resource Management Journal. 12 (2) : 22-38.
Guzzo, R. A. & Noonan, K. A. (1994). Human Resource Practices as Communications andthe PsychologicalContract. Human Resource Management. 33 (3) :447-462.
Herriot, P. (1992). The Career Management Challenge, Sage Books Ltd.: London
Herriot, P. & Pemberton, C. (1996). Contracting Careers. Human Relation., 49 (6): 757-790.
Herriot, P., Manning, W.E.G., & Kidd, J.M. (1997). The Content of the PsychologicalContract. British Journal of Management. 8: 151-162.

49

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 2007, 32(2)Jarvis, P. (2001). Universities and Corporate Universities, Kogan Page, London.
Levinson, H., Price, C.R., Munden, K.J. & Solley, C.M. (1963). Men, Management and
Mental Health. Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA.
Lorsch, J. (1979). Making Behavioral Science More Useful. Harvard Business Review. 171180, March-April.
Kenyon, A J. (2004). Exploring Phenomenological Research. International Journal of Market
Research. 46 (4): 427-441.
Kickul, J. & Lester, S.W. (2001). Broken Promises: Equity Sensitivity as a Moderator
Between Psychological Contract Breach and Employee Attitudes and Behaviour. Journal ofBusiness and Psychology. 16 ( 2): 191-216.
Krivokapic-Skoko, B., Ivers, J. & O’Neill, G. (2006). Psychological Contracts: Conceptualand Empirical Considerations. Faculty of Commerce Working Paper Series, Charles Sturt
University, No. 01/06.
Kickul, J. & Lester, S.W. (2001). Broken Promises: Equity Sensitivity as a Moderator
Between Psychological Contract Breach and Employee Attitudes and Behaviour. Journal ofBusiness and Psychology, 16 ( 2): 191-216.
Lewis, T., Marginson, S. & Snyder, I. (2005). The Network University? Technology, Culture
and Organisational Complexity in Contemporary Higher Education. Higher Education
Quarterly. 59 (1): 56-75.
Lorsch, J. (1979). Making Behavioral Science More Useful. Harvard Business Review.
March-April: 171-180.
Marginson, S. & Considine, M. (2000). The Enterprise University: Power, Governance andReinvention in Australia. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
Meckler, M., Drake, B.H. & Levinson, H. (2003). Putting Psychology Back into
Psychological Contracts. Journal of Management Enquiry. 12 (3): 217-228.
Newton, J. (2002). Barriers to Effective Quality Management and Leadership: Case Study of
Two Academic Departments. Higher Education. 44: 185-212.
O’Neill, G., Krivokapic-Skoko, B., Foundling, M., & Travaglione, T. (2006), Exploring
Psychological Contracts Established by Academics: Empirical Evidence from an Australian
University. Paper presented at the UTTC conference organised by the Thai Chamber ofCommerce (UTTC), School of Business, International Conference in Business 2006:
Revolution for the New Era Competition, Bangkok, 7-8 December 2006.
O’Neill, G., Krivokapic-Skoko, B., & Foundling, M. (2007), Exploring Psychological50

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 2007, 32(2)Contracts Established by Academics at an Australian University: Focus Group Analysis.
Faculty of Business Working Paper Series, Charles Sturt University, Working Paper No. 03/07.
Ormsby, J.G., & Watts, L. R. (1991). College Faculty Unionization and Its Effect on the
Gender/Job Satisfaction Relationship. Journal of Collective Negotiation. 20(1): 43-52.
Robinson, S. & Rousseau, D.M. (1994). Violating the Psychological Contracts: Not the
Exception but the Norm. Journal of Organizational Behaviour. 15 : 245-259.
Roehling, M.V. (1997). The Origins and Early Development of the Psychological Contract
Construct. Journal of Management History. 3(2): 204-303.
Rousseau, D. (1990). New Hire Perception of Their Own and Their Employer’s Obligations:
A Study of Psychological Contracts. Journal of Organizational Behaviour. 11(5): 389-400.
Rousseau, D.M. (1995). Psychological Contracts in Organizations: Understanding Writtenand Unwritten Agreements. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Shore, L.M. & Tetrick, L.E. (1994). The Psychological Contract as an Explanatory
Framework in the Employment Relationship. In Cooper, C.L. and Rousseau, D.M. (eds),,
Trends in Organizational Behaviour, Wiley, New York, pp.91-103.
Smith, P.C., Kendall, L. & Hulin, C.L. (1969). The Measurement of Satisfaction in Work andRetirement, Rand McNally: Chicago.
Sutton, G. & Griffin, M.A. (2004). Integrating Expectations, Experiences, and PsychologicalContract Violations: A Longitudinal Study of New Professionals. Journal of Occupationaland Organizational Psychology. 77: 493-514.
Thomas, H.D.C. & Anderson, N. (1998). Changes in Newcomers’ Psychological Contracts
During Organizational Socialization: A Study of Recruits Entering the British Army. Journalof Organizational Behaviour. 19: 745-767.
Thompson, J.A. & Bunderson, J.S. (2003). Violations of Principle: Ideological Currency in
the Psychological Contract. Academy of Management Review. 28 (4): 571-586.
Tipples, R. (1996). Contracting: The Key to Employment Relations. International
Employment Relations Review. 2(2): 19-41.
Tipples, R. & Krivokapic-Skoko, B. (1996). Performance Management and Its Influence on
Academics’ Employment Relationships and Careers: Lincoln since University 1990.
Proceedings of the Seventh Conference on “Labour, Employment and Work in New Zealand”,
Victoria University of Wellington, pp.232-240.

51

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 2007, 32(2)Tipples, R.S., & Krivokapic-Skoko, B. (1997). New Zealand Academics and Performance
Management. International Journal of Employment Studies. 5(2): 103-116.
Tipples, R.S. & Jones, P. (1998). Extra Contractual Relations – the Substance of Academics’
Psychological Contracts in New Zealand. In Harbridge, R., Gadd, C. and Crawford, A. (eds.)
Current Research in Industrial Relations – Proceedings of the 12th. AIRRANZ Conference,
Victoria University of Wellington, 3-5 February, 377-385.
Tipples, R.S. & Verry, J. (2006). How to Manage Staff with Individual contracts? Some
Experiences with Psychological Contracts Since the Employment Contracts Act 1991 in New
Zealand. Paper presented at the 3rd. International Conference on Contemporary Business,organized by Faculty of Commerce, Charles Sturt University: Leura, Blue Mountains, NSW,
Australia.
Turnley, W.H. & Feldman, D. (1999). The Impact of Psychological Contract Violation on
Exit, Voice, Loyalty and Neglect. Human Relations. 52: 895-922.
Wanous, J.P., Poland, T.D., Premack, S.L.,& Davis, K.S. (1992). The Effect of Met
Expectations on Newcomer Attitudes and Behaviors: A Review and Meta-Analysis. Journalof Applied Psychology. 77: 288-297.
Winter, R.P. & Sarros, J.C. (2002). Corporate Reforms to Australian Universities: Views
from the Academic Heartland. Journal of Institutional Research. 11(2): 92-104.

52

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations (2007), 32(2)Attitudes towards Workplace Change in the Australian Higher
Education Sector: a tale of divergence and a case for reform
STEPHEN WELLER* and BERNADINE VAN GRAMBERG**
Abstract
This paper reports on the findings of a survey that explored staff perceptions of change
management in Australian universities with a view to gauging the effectiveness of workplacechange provisions in Higher Education enterprise agreements. The survey examined academic
and general staff perceptions of the effectiveness of change management methods, theeffectiveness of employee involvement in workplace change and the fairness of workplacechange. The findings of the research demonstrate a clear divergence in the perceptions ofmanagement and union representatives on workplace change and highlight the limitations ofexisting processes to meet the expectations and demands of these key sector participants. The
paper concludes that the desire by management for a greater ability to facilitate workplacechange and by unions to foster a greater sense of employee involvement demonstrate the needfor reform of the workplace change provisions within the Australian Higher Education Sector.

Introduction
This paper explores staff attitudes to three aspects of the change management process inAustralian universities. Through an attitudinal survey of 580 staff from the 37 public
universities in Australia, the paper reports on the extent to which respondents believe thatchange is managed effectively; that employees are involved in the change process; and thatthe change process is perceived to be fair. The underlying themes explored in this paper
through a review of Australian industrial relations scholarship, are: the need for active
involvement of employees within processes relating to the management of workplace change(Davis and Lansbury, 1989) and the maintenance of workplace justice (Cobb, Folger, &Wooten, 1995).
The research presented is undertaken in the Australian Higher Education sector and forms partof a doctoral thesis undertaken at Victoria University, Melbourne, Australia. It explores therelationship between employee involvement and the management of workplace change within
an organisational justice context in the Australian Higher Education sector. This paper builds
on an earlier longitudinal study of the provisions for employee involvement within the change
management clauses of workplace enterprise bargaining agreements (EBAs) across threecycles of negotiations covering a period of approximately 10 years from 1996-2006 (Weller
and Van Gramberg, 2006). In that study the change management clauses of all 37 EBAs were*

Victoria University, Melbourne, Australia, stephen.weller@vu.edu.au**

Associate Professor Bernadine Van Gramberg is Head of the School of Management and an associate of theCentre for International Corporate Governance Research at Victoria University.
Bernadine.vangramberg@vu.edu.au

53

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations (2007), 32(2)examined. It was found that there had been a decline in the (espoused) degree of employee
involvement in the management of workplace change and also a shift in the form of employee
involvement from a primarily bi-partite approach (management and union) to an increasingly
tri-partite approach (management, staff and union) reflecting the increased participation of
non-unionised employees. The findings suggested that change management in the AustralianHigher Education sector appeared to be becoming more managerially driven over the 10 year
span and less likely to involve close participation of employees.
As the previous study restricted itself to observations made of workplace policy provisions, it
could only surmise the possible shifts in actual employee involvement in workplace change
arising from the introduction of the Higher Education Workplace Reform Requirements(HEWRR) in 2005 by the Commonwealth Government. These reforms have, amongst otherthings, required universities to ensure that EBAs make provision for management and staff
interaction (as opposed to management and union interaction) as an alternative to staff
electing to have their interests represented by their union (DEST, 2005). This paper moves thestudy from workplace provisions to workplace perceptions of actual practice in three key
areas: the perceived effectiveness of the change process, the perceived extent of employee
involvement and the perceived fairness of the change.
First, effectiveness of change can be measured through: the ability to present reasons for thechange; the ability to argue that the change is necessary; the ability to describe the nature of
the change; the ability to document the change process; the ability to achieve the goals of thechange; the ability to actually implement the change itself; the ability to review the change
process; and lastly the ability to build consensus around the change (Victor & Franckeiss,
2002). Second, successful organisational change is often associated with the involvement of
employees in the change process (Palmer & Dunford 2002). This paper focuses on themeasurement of the degree of employee involvement in the process. The survey adopted thescale of employee involvement developed by the International Research Group (IDE, 1976).
This scale, which has since been utilised across a number of international research projects,
provides a seven point measure of employee involvement comprising: no involvement;
provision of information; provision of information before a final decision; the right tocomment; obligatory consultation; joint decision making; and complete involvement. Finally,
fairness has been long considered an important dimension of successful change management(Cobb, Folger, & Wooten, 1995). Fairness can be examined according to the principles oforganisational justice (procedural, distributive and interactional). These measures oforganisational fairness are considered further below.

Change management and employment involvement
The notion of seeking effective change management through the use of employee
involvement is well reported in the international literature of the last 50 years (Coch andFrench, 1948; Beer and Nohira, 2000). Similarly, the issue of employee involvement and theforms it takes represents a diverse field of study and commentators have debated the spectrumof employee involvement from participative management through to industrial democracy(Teicher, 1992; Black and Gregerson, 1997). In other words, there is an accepted theory thatthe extent to which employees are offered meaningful participation is directly linked with thesuccess of the organisational change program (Dunphy & Stace 1988).
54

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations (2007), 32(2)The focus of this paper is to explore the perceptions of participants of the workplace change
processes within the Australian Higher Education Sector and the extent to which this contrasts
with the provisions articulated in the EBAs. Underpinning perceptions of fairness are thebehaviours relating to whether an action is fair or not. For instance, Greenberg (1990, 399), a
key organisational justice theorist commented:“In view of the widespread recognition of the importance of fairness as an issue
in organisations, it is understandable that theories of [organisational] justice
have been applied to understanding behaviours in organisations”.
Similarly, Hosmer and Kiewitz (2005:67) described the relationship between justice andfairness as being one where:“Organisational justice is a behavioural concept that refers to the perception of
fairness of the past treatment of the employees within an organisation held by
the employees of that organisation”.
Organisational justice has a number of dimensions that include distributive justice, or theperceived fairness of the outcome; procedural justice, or the perceived fairness of the process;and interactional justice, or the nature of the interactions of the decision makers during aprocess (Cobb, Folger, & Wooten, 1995). In considering whether distributive justice isreflected in a workplace decision (such as a type of workplace change) employees weigh up a
range of factors in order to construct a judgement on whether the outcome was fair. These
factors include whether the final outcome was based on merit; whether the decision impacted
equally on all participants within the organisation; whether the needs of the organisation wereconsidered in the process; whether the needs of the participants were considered in theprocess; and whether compensation was provided in regards to adverse decisions (Cobb,
Folger, & Wooten, 1995).
Employees’ sense of fairness is also a function of being afforded procedural justice. Here, theperceived fairness of the procedures used in the decision making process can encompass
factors such as: whether decisions were made consistently; whether the decision making
processes were impartial; whether decisions were made on accurate information; whether
there were opportunities provided to employees to have input into the decision making
process; whether there was compatibility of the decision making process with organisational
ethics and values; and whether there were appropriate mechanisms to appeal the decision(Paterson, Green, & Carey, 2002).
Finally, employees also judge the extent to which they have been afforded interactional
justice as a component of fairness. The fairness of the interpersonal treatment experienced byparticipants in a decision making process entails factors such as: whether participants felt
there was honesty in the process; whether staff were treated courteously during the process;whether staff had their rights respected in the process; whether the process was devoid of
prejudice; whether decisions were appropriately justified; and whether decisions werecommunicated transparently (Paterson, Green, & Carey, 2002).
The earlier longitudinal study found that there were provisions for employee involvement in
the management of workplace change in all the agreements (Weller and Van Gramberg,
2006). Further it re-enforced the underlying philosophy of the sector that the involvement of55

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations (2007), 32(2)those affected by change was a requirement in facilitating effective change. The responses tothis attitudinal survey will allow for an assessment of the extent to which the participants inworkplace change believe that the change management processes facilitate either effective
workplace change or foster effective employee involvement.

Research methodology and survey population
The research methodology consisted of an attitudinal survey administered to management andunion representatives (academic and general staff) within Australian publicly funded
universities. The survey was administered in September 2006 to a sample group of 580 staff
across the 37 public universities. The sample group was made up of two sub-samples: 228
staff employed as senior executives within the universities and 352 staff employed as union
branch executive members within the universities. The contact details for the sample wereobtained from the websites of the Australian Vice-Chancellor’s Committee in the case of the
management group and the National Tertiary Education Union (NTEU) for the union group.
Both these websites list University Executive and Branch Executive members publicly.
The attitudinal survey was seen as providing the most effective way of obtaining an overview
of the perceptions of those in working in the sector, and in particular, those most likely to be
involved in the change management process. It is however accepted that they are, in turn, notentirely representative of line managers or operational staff. The next stage of this research
will be to undertake focus group interviews to obtain illustrative details of the change
management process and the nature of employee involvement.
The questionnaire was developed using a combination of existing scales across three key
areas: change management (Victor and Franckeiss, 2002), employee involvement(International Research Group, 1976) and organisational justice (Cobb, Folger and Wooten,
1995 and Paterson, Green and Carey, 2002). Following a pilot of the survey senior executives
and union branch executive members from Victoria University some minor changes weremade and the survey was dispatched via mail using a hardcopy survey with a reply-paid
envelope. A supporting letter was included, signed by both the Vice-Chancellor and NTEU
President of Victoria University encouraging recipients to complete and respond to thesurvey. This bipartite approach was undertaken in order to demonstrate that the research was
primarily concerned in findings that would be of assistance to both management and union
representatives.
Following the dispatch by mail a total of 134 surveys (23%) were returned within four weeks.
An email reminder was sent encouraging the return of the survey and indicating the initial
response rate received. The benefits of this ‘multi-modal’ approach to survey distribution, thatis a combination of mail and email, is supported by Woong Yun and Trumbo (2000) who
conclude their findings “…we believe that the differences detected in the response groups
indicate that using multi-mode survey techniques improve the representativeness of thesample, without biasing other results”. Finally, 170 responses were received representing a
response rate of 29%. This comprised a total of 55 management responses (from 228 sent out)
representing a response rate of 24% and a total of 115 union responses (from 352)
representing a response rate of 33%. The response rate by employment type was similar with
58% academic and 42% general staff responding across the total sample. In the case of56

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations (2007), 32(2)management respondents this was 56% academic compared to 44% general and in the case ofunion respondents this was 58% academic compared to 42% general.
Response rates were broken down into university groupings operating within the AustralianHigher Education Sector. The Group of Eight features the eight oldest universities inAustralia established before the 1950s and with a research intensive focus. The Innovative
Research Universities are the seven universities that were established during the 1960s and1970s and have a targeted research focus to their activities. The Australian Technology
Network features five universities that were established during the 1980s that had come out ofbackgrounds as institutes of technology. The New generation Universities features ten
universities that were established during the 1990s and generally were the product ofamalgamations of former colleges of advanced education. The Regional Universities featureseven universities that were established between the 1950s and the 1990s and are based inregional or rural centres (Australian Education Network, 2007).
The response by sector type ranged from 27% for the Group of Eight Universities to 34% for
the Regional Universities. Correspondingly, the lowest response rate from union
representatives came from within the Group of Eight Universities (25%) and the highest fromthe Regional Universities (44%). Conversely, responses from management representatives
was highest from the Group of Eight Universities (29%) compared to the Regional
Universities with the lowest response rate (18%).
The 55 management respondents allowed for broad comparison of their attitudes towards
change to be compared to union respondents. However, meaningful comparisons across roletypes within sector type could not be done as the sub samples were small. Similarly, given the
total number of union responses was more than double those of management, the ability tocompare academic and general responses, without breaking these categories down into
management and union role type was problematic. As such, and for the purposes of further
analysis, the remaining sections of the survey are analysed here with regard to the attitudinaldifferences between management and union responses as well as attitudinal differences
between sector types with an emphasis on identifying where there is convergence ordivergence of opinion in regards to issues of the effectiveness of change management, theprovisions of employee involvement, and perceptions of organisational justice.
In the subsequent analysis and findings, we make comments regarding apparent convergenceand divergence between management and union attitudes. It is acknowledged that theseobservations are made at a fixed point in term, namely when the survey was conducted, andmay not be replicated beyond the timeframe for the survey.

Analysis and findings
Section Two of the Attitudinal Survey focussed on perceptions towards the effectiveness ofchange management provisions in relation to the objective of the institution to facilitateorganisational efficiency. In particular, Question 12 examined the issue of effectiveness ofchange with respondents asked to rate the effectiveness of the change processes within theirorganisation.

57

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations (2007), 32(2)The responses to this question in turn used a scale developed by Victor and Franckeiss, 2002
which identified eight key dimensions to measure the effectiveness of change management
processes. The survey adopted these measures in relation to the effectiveness of the university
to:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.

Present reasons for the change
Argue that the change was necessary
Describe the nature of the change
Document the change process
Achieve the goals of the change
Implement the change process
Review the change process
Build consensus around the change

For the purposes of comparison, very high and high responses have been combined to providea ‘favourable’ measure of effectiveness. In terms of overall effectiveness of the change
management processes, management respondents were 90% favourable compared to union
respondents who were 2% favourable. This indicates a significant divergence between
management and union respondents in relation to change management provisions. Figure 1
illustrates the degree of convergence and divergence between management and union inregards to the overall effectiveness of change management processes as well as indicating theindividual dimensions of effectiveness of change management.
FIGURE 1: Change Management Effectiveness: Favourable Rating
Change Management EffectivenessFavourable Rating
100
90
80
70
60
MGT
UNION

50
40
30
20
10
0
Overall
EffectivenessPresent
Reasons

Argue
Necessary

DecribeNatureDocument
Process

Achieve Goals

Implement
Change

Review
ChangeBuild
Consensus

58

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations (2007), 32(2)Although there is some convergence, or agreement around the dimensions of the ‘capacity to
implement change’ (as perceived by unions) and the ‘capacity to build consensus’ (asperceived by management) these findings suggest that there is considerable work to be done if
there is to be greater consensus between management and unions in implementing effective
change.
Despite the positive overall rating of effectiveness of the change process noted bymanagement representatives, less favourable ratings were given to the ability to ‘document
the change process’, ‘review the change process’ and ‘build consensus around the change
process’. On the other hand, union representatives responded more favourably to their
institution’s ability to ‘describe the nature of the change’, ‘achieve the goals of the change’,and ‘implement the change’ than the overall rating of effectiveness for change management.
These areas of critical evaluation by management and unions of the change process points tosome scope to explore better practices to enhance the effectiveness of change management
processes in relation to these specific dimensions.
In considering the effectiveness of change management processes in facilitatingorganisational efficiency, we found that whilst there were no marked differences between the
responses of academic and general staff, an assessment of sector type revealed that Group of
Eight respondents were consistently more favourable compared to the overall sector. By way
of contrast, respondents from the Regional Universities were consistently less favourable
when compared to the overall sector. While these responses represented the two ends of thespectrum, the responses from New Generation Universities reflected the overall survey groupresults. This was also the case for the Australian Technology Network except for their morefavourable response in relation to the ability of their institutions to achieve the goals ofchange and implement the change process when compared to the sector overall. Conversely,
the Innovative Research Universities, whose responses were relatively consistent with theoverall survey population, were less favourable to the ability of their institutions to achieve
the goals of change and implement the change process.
Section Three of the Attitudinal Survey focussed on perceptions towards the effectiveness ofchange management provisions in relation to the objective of fostering employee
involvement. The Attitudinal Survey included reference to an extract from the original award
provisions of the Australian Higher Education Sector: “It is acknowledged that soundmanagement of workplace change requires the involvement of those who will be directly
affected by the change”.
In response to the question of whether the management of workplace change requires theinvolvement of those staff directly affected, management respondents were 90% favourable
compared to union respondents who were 92% favourable. This indicates a significant
convergence between management and union respondents in relation to the philosophicalquestion of fostering employee involvement in the management of workplace change.
However, when asked whether the processes for managing workplace change provide for
employee involvement, management respondents were 92% favourable compared to only
30% of union respondents. This divergence between management and union respondents
points to the difference between rhetoric and reality in implementing change in this sector.

59

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations (2007), 32(2)In response to the question of what should be the major focus in the management of
workplace change, namely organisational efficiency or employee involvement, management
and union respondents were consistent in their majority response of a ‘combination of
involvement and efficiency’ (71% for both management and union). Again, on thisphilosophical point, this indicates a significant convergence between management and union
respondents. Further, the views on these three questions were universally shared with nosignificant differences across employment type or sector type compared to the overall
response.
The Attitudinal Survey then explored three further questions regarding employee involvementin the management of workplace change. The first of these questions asked respondents torate their answer along a seven point scale for measuring the degree of employee involvement
as developed by the International Research Group (1976):
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

There was no employee involvement
Employees were provided with information on the change
Employees were provided with information before a final decision was madeEmployees had the right to comment on the change
Employee consultation was an obligatory part of the change process
Employees were joint decision makers in the change management process
Employees had complete involvement in the change management process

Question 17 examined the degree of employee involvement in the management of workplacechange.
“Which of the following [statements] best describes the degree of employee involvement in
the [change] process?
The results of the Attitudinal Survey indicated a divergence between management and union
respondents in relation to the perceived degree of employee involvement in the managementof workplace change. Most management representatives indicated that the degree of employee
involvement ranked fifth, Obligatory Consultation (63%). Unions on the other hand ranked it
second, Provision of Information (32%) as well as Obligatory Consultation (30%) indicating
perhaps the different involvement practices across Australian universities.
There was less divergence between management and union respondents in relation to the formof employee involvement. Here, the majority response for both management (53%) and union(38%) was that that employee involvement occurs on a tripartite basis (between management,
staff and union representatives).
In the case of each of the questions there were no significant differences across the categories
of employment type (academic or general) or sector type compared to the overall response.
However, whilst the responses to overall effectiveness of the change management processes
in fostering employee involvement indicate no significant differences in opinion between
academic and general staff, there were some differences in responses by sector type. The
overall sector total of responses is relatively consistently matched by the responses from theInnovative Research Universities, the Australian Technology Network and the New
Generation Universities. The Group of Eight Universities however reported a considerably60

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations (2007), 32(2)lower level of responses at the ‘low effectiveness’ end of the scale while conversely the
Regional Universities reported a considerably lower level of responses at the ‘higheffectiveness’ end of the scale. In other words, it appears that Group of Eight Universities
were more positive that change management processes had fostered employee involvement
than the Regional Universities.

FIGURE 2: Employee Involvement: Degree of Employee Involvement
DEGREE OF EMPLOYEE INVOLVEMENT
70

60

50

40
MGT
UNION
30

20

10

0
No employee
involvement

Provision ofInformation

Information Before
Final Decision

The Right toComment

Obligatory
Consultation

Joint Decision
MakingComplete
Employee
Involvement

The fourth section of the Attitudinal Survey focussed on perceptions of fairness in the
management of workplace change. The survey explored an organisational justice context witha focus on perceptions of fairness of the decision-making process and its outcomes.
Organisational justice in turn was defined as consisting of three aspects; distributive,
procedural and interactional justice. Question 20 examined the issue of distributive justice, or
the perceived fairness of the outcomes. The responses to this question featured a scale
developed by Cobb, Folger and Wooten (1995) in relation to the dimensions of distributive
justice:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

The final decision was based on merit
The decision impacted equally on all participants
The needs of the organisation were considered
The needs of the participants were considered
Appropriate compensation was provided for adverse decisions

As with previous questions, responses indicating ‘very high’ and ‘high’ were combined toprovide a ‘favourable’ measure of effectiveness. In terms of overall perceptions of the fairnessof the outcomes of the change decision making processes, 78% of management respondents
were favourable compared to only 4% of union respondents. This indicates a considerable
divergence between management and union respondents in relation to distributive justice,again pointing to different perceptions between management and union representatives. There
were no significant differences between the responses of academic and general staff.
61

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations (2007), 32(2)FIGURE 3: Distributive Justice Dimensions: Favourable Rating
DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE FAVOURABLE RATING
100

90

80

70

60
MGT
UNION

50

40

30

20

10

0
Overall Effectiveness

Decision Based on
Merit

Decision Impacted
Equally

Needs of Organisation Needs of Participants

Appropriate
Compensation

Figure 3 illustrates the considerable divergence in the responses of management and union
respondents in relation to the overall provisions for distributive justice. The degree of greatest
divergence (>70%) occurs between management and union in relation to the dimension of‘the decision was based on merit’. On the other hand, both management and union
respondents indicated that change was undertaken more according to the needs of theorganisation than its employees.
An assessment by sector type indicated some variations between ratings with the Group of
Eight universities responding more favourably overall and particularly in regards to the extent
to which the decision impacted equally on all participants and the provision of appropriatecompensation. The Regional Universities again occupied the other end of the spectrum withrespondents generally rating less favourably on these two measures. The findings suggest thatchange overall is perceived as being more fairly implemented in the Group of Eight
universities than the Regionals.
Question 22 examined the issue of procedural justice, or the perceived fairness of theprocedures. The responses to this question featured a scale developed by Paterson, Green andCarey (2002) in relation to the dimensions of procedural justice:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

Decisions were made consistently
Decision making processes were impartial
Decisions were based on accurate information
Opportunities were provided to employees to have input
Compatibility of the process with organisational ethics and values
Appropriate mechanisms to appeal the decision

62

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations (2007), 32(2)FIGURE 4: Procedural Justice Dimensions: Favourable Rating
PROCEDURAL JUSTICE FAVOURABLE RATING
100
90
80
70
60
MGT
UNION

50
40
30
20
10
0
Overall
Effectiveness

Decisions Made
Consistently

Decision
Processes
Impartial

Decisions Basedon Information

Opportunities for
Employee Input

Compatability with
Ethics and Values

Mechanisms to
Appeal Decision

In terms of overall perceptions of the fairness of the process of the change decision making
processes, 91% of management respondents were favourable compared to only 6% of union
respondents as depicted in Figure 4. This significant divergence again, suggests the operationof a different set of expectations in relation to distributive justice. There were no significant
differences in the responses of academic and general staff.
The degree of greatest divergence (>70%) occurs between management and union in relation
to the dimensions of ‘decisions were made consistently’ and ‘decisions were based on
accurate information’. An assessment by sector type indicated some variations between
ratings with the Group of Eight universities again responding more favourably overall andparticularly to the extent to which decisions were made consistently and that there were
opportunities for employee input. Again, the Regional Universities responded less favourably
overall and particularly in regards to these same two dimensions on which the Group of Eight
Universities were more favourable, suggesting a considerable degree of sectoral divergence.
Question 24 examined the issue of interactional justice, or the perceived fairness of theinterpersonal treatment experienced by participants in a decision making process. The
responses to this question featured a scale developed by Paterson, Green and Carey (2002) inrelation to the dimensions of interactional justice:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

There was honesty in the decision making process
Staff were treated courteously during the process
Staff had their rights respected during the process
The decision making process was devoid of prejudiceDecisions that were made were appropriately justified
Decisions that were made were communicated transparently

63New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations (2007), 32(2)FIGURE 5: Interactional Justice Dimensions: Favourable Rating
INTERACTIONAL JUSTICE FAVOURABLE RATING
100
90
80
70
60
MGT
UNION

50
40
30
20
10
0
Overall
EffectivenessHonesty in theProcess

Staff Treated
Courteously

Staff Rights
Respected

Process Devoid of
Prejudice

Decisions
Appropriately
Justified

Decisions
CommunicatedTransparently

Again, for the purposes of ease of comparison, ‘very high’ and ‘high’ responses werecombined to provide a ‘favourable’ measure of effectiveness. The findings indicate that
overall, 89% of management respondents were favourable compared to only 9% of union
representatives. This is illustrated in Figure 5. The degree of greatest divergence (>70%)
occurs between management and union in relation to the dimensions of ‘there was honesty inthe decision making process’, ‘staff had their rights respected during the process’, ‘decisions
that were made were appropriately justified’, and ‘decisions that were made werecommunicated transparently’.
There were some small variations between academic and general staff in relation tointeractional justice. General Staff were more inclined than academic staff to believe that staff
were treated not courteously during the process and that the decision making process wasprejudiced. This seems to suggest that general staff experienced change more harshly than did
academic staff.
An assessment by sector type indicated that the Group of Eight universities responded morefavourably overall and particularly with regard to the extent to which staff were treatedcourteously and staff had their rights respected. Again, the Regional Universities responded
less favourably overall and particularly in regards to these same two dimensions on which theGroup of Eight Universities were more favourable, illustrating the sectoral divergence of thechange management experience.

64New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations (2007), 32(2)Discussion
It is apparent from the analysis of the Attitudinal Survey that there is a great deal of difference
between the perceptions of management and union representatives, regardless of whether they
are academic or general staff. A level of divergence, or disagreement, was found to be present
across all the key areas of effectiveness in facilitating organisational efficiency, effectivenessin fostering employment involvement and each of the three dimensions of organisational
justice. This might be argued to be a predicable result – the polarisation of responses from a
predominantly management and union biased set of respondents. But this is too simplistic aschange affects both management and union protagonists in the university sector. Further,change is generally designed to improve efficiency and productivity and this requires thecooperation and good will of employees. What the findings do reveal is that there aregradations of disagreement and agreement attached to the sector types and that overall,management respondents are overwhelmingly supportive and positive about the change. Aschange is instigated by management, this suggests that university management may be out of
touch with the level of disenchantment experienced by their employees.
The results show that the change experience is certainly not homogenous across the sector. It
is apparent that at the extremes, there is less divergence between respondents within theGroup of Eight Universities but more divergence between respondents within the Regional
Universities. Group of Eight Universities demonstrate the greatest level of agreement between
management and union representatives that change is effective and fair. The Regional
Universities demonstrate the least agreement between management and union representatives
that change is effective and fair. The other sector groupings arrange themselves somewhere
between, all with a degree of divergence in the change experience which would suggest thatmost require increased effort be put into meaningful employee involvement in their change
processes. This is not to say that respondents in the Group of Eight actually consider change
to be effective and fair but only that the degree of difference between them is smaller than thatfound in other sector types. Nevertheless, there may be lessons to be learned from the waychange is managed in these older established institutions.
From these findings, we would argue that the management of workplace change in theAustralian Higher Education Sector is in need of reform and that a focus on those dimensionsof organisational justice where there is greatest convergence may provide an avenue in whichto consider such reform. The results of the survey show that across the 17 dimensions oforganisational justice tested, it is possible to identify seven upon which there is relative
convergence between management and union on these principles:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

The extent to which final decisions are based on merit
The extent to which decisions were made consistently
The extent to which decisions were based on accurate information
The extent to which there was honesty in the decision making process
The extent to which staff had their rights respected during the process
The extent to which decisions that were made were appropriately justified
The extent to which decisions that were made were communicated transparently

65New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations (2007), 32(2)Of these seven dimensions one relates to distributive justice, two relate to procedural justice,and four to interactional justice. A tentative conclusion from this would be that the greatest
degree of convergence between management and union in relation to the dimensions oforganisational justice occurs in respect of interactional justice. In other words, fairness ofchange is perceived strongly and more positively when people are treated with respect anddignity in the process and their needs are taken into account by the decision makers. It should
be noted from the survey that both management and union respondents considered that change
took into account the needs of the organisation more strongly than it did the needs of theemployees. A change management program addressing this issue could focus more positively
on how the change will address employee needs.
By considering in greater detail the perceptions of participants within each of these sevendimensions it may be possible to identify those areas where practices can be reformed and thedegree of divergence can be reduced. Thus, it may be possible to bridge the overall divide
between management and union representatives in the Australian Higher Education Sector in
relation to the management of workplace change. This will be the aim of the next stage of thisresearch will involve undertaking focus group interviews with a sub-sample of the
respondents to the Attitudinal Survey to gauge a deeper understanding of the institutional
practices in relation to the identified organisational justice dimensions where management andunion convergence is greatest.

Conclusion
This paper explored the perceptions of the effectiveness of change, the effectiveness of
employee involvement and perceptions of the fairness of workplace change by university
executives and union representatives as measured through an organisational justice context.
The findings suggest that there is significant divergence between management and union
respondents in their experience of the change process. Whilst this divergence might be argued
as somewhat predictable, it suggests that action is required so that management and unions
can better understand and appreciate their respective goals in workplace change. Despite thedifferences, there are areas of agreement in terms of the principles of organisational justice.
The identification of these specific dimensions of organisational justice provides a starting
point to consider a change process which facilitates fairer organisational change. Given thatchange management is now firmly a feature of this important Australian industry, theseresults point to the need for enhanced provisions for employee involvement in the
management of workplace change and reform of workplace change management practices
that can facilitate organisational efficiency whilst at the same time foster employee
involvement.

66

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations (2007), 32(2)References
Australian Education Network (AEN). (2007). Groupings of Universities Australia.
http://www.australian-universities.com/groupings-of-australian-universities.php, accessed 13
November, 2007.
Beer, M. & Nohira, N. (2000). Cracking the Code of Change. Harvard Business Review.
May-June: 133-141.
Black, J. S. & Gregersen, H.B. (1997). Participative Decision Making: An Integration ofMultiple Dimensions. Human Relations. 50(7): 859-878.
Coch, L., & French, J. (1948). Overcoming resistance to change. Human Relations. 1(5): 512533.
Cobb, A.T., Folger, R., & Wooten, K. (1995). The role justice plays in organisational change.
Public Administration Quarterly. 19(2):135-151.
Davis, E. M., & Lansbury, R. D. (1989). Worker participation in decisions on technologicalchange in Australia. In Bamber, G.J. & Lansbury, R.D. (Eds) New Technology, Unwin
Hyman, London.
Dunphy, D.C., & Stace, D.A. (1988). Transformational and Coercive Strategies for Planned
Organizational Change: Beyond the O.D. Model. Organization Studies. 9(3): 317-334.
Department of Education, Science and Training (DEST). (2005). Higher Education
Workplace Relations Requirements. (HEWRRs) – Draft Guidelines AGPS, Canberra.
Greenberg, J. (1990). Organizational justice: Yesterday, today and tomorrow. Journal ofManagement. 16(2): 399-432.
Hosmer, LR.H. & Kiewitz, C. (2005). Organiszational Justice: A behavioural science concept
with critical implications for business ethics and stakeholder theory. Business Ethics
Quarterly. 15(1): 67-91.
International Research Group. (1976), Industrial Democracy in Europe (IDE): An
international comparative study. Social Science Information. 15(1): 177-203
Palmer, I. & Dunford, R. (2002). Who says change can be managed? Positions, perspectives
and problematic. Strategic Change. 11(5): 243-251.
Paterson, J.M., Green, A., & Carey, J. (2002). The measurement of organizational justice inorganizational change programmes. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology.
75: 393-408
Teicher, J. (1992). Theories of employee participation and industrial democracy: towards ananalytical framework. In Dabscheck, B., Griffin, G., and Teicher, J (eds) Contemporary
Australian Industrial Relations, Longman Cheshire, Melbourne.
Victor, P. and Franckeiss, A. (2002). The five dimensions of change: an integrated approachto strategic organizational change management. Strategic Change. 11(1): 35-42.
67

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations (2007), 32(2)Weller, S. & VanGramberg, B. (2006). Provisions for Employee Involvement in ChangeManagement. AIRAANZ Conference Proceedings.
Woong Yun, G. & Trumbo, C. (2000). Comparative Response to a survey executed by post,
email and web form. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication. 6(1).

68New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 2007, 32(2)From IR to HRM: Thank God for AACSB!
STELLA NG* and KERI SPOONER**
Abstract
Efforts to achieve accreditation with the Association to Advance Collegiate Schoolsof Business (AACSB) by the Faculty of Business at UTS began in 2001 andcorresponded with an increased pressure upon academics in the industrial relations(IR) and employment relations (ER) area at UTS to adopt a stronger and more overt
focus on teaching HRM. AACSB requirements exerted a profound influence on the
movement from an IR/ER to HRM focus in teaching and not only acted to reduce
academic resistance to the movement but moreover resulted in what has been assessed
to be a more meaningful teaching and learning experience.

Introduction
Academics in the fields of industrial relations (IR), personnel management (PM),employment relations (ER) and human resource management (HRM) are very muchaware of the impact which global, national and local shifts in ideology have exerted
upon their disciplines (Kelly 2003). In the 1970s for instance, many students
clamoured to study industrial relations and many academics had focussed their careers
in this field. At this time, PM was viewed as a separate study from that of IR and as
having a more administrative and less academic focus. Throughout the 1980s and1990’s, a fundamental shift occurred in the dynamics of tertiary education and in thenature of the courses sought by students (Airini et al 2006; Ziguras 2003; Biggs &Davis 2002; Brand 1999). Reforms to Australian higher education beginning with
Dawkins (1987, 1988) and intensified under the 1996 Federal government budget
cuts, moved the higher education sector more towards a market of competing
institutions (Marginson 1997).
In the process of reform, new processes of government and management were put inplace, including “new systems of competitive bidding, performance management andquality assessment (which) have all been used to steer academic work and to install aprocess of continuous self-transformation along modern neo-liberal lines” (Marginson
1997:63). Universities were required to change from government funded bodies inwhich academics could pursue the subjects that they thought important and relevant,to bodies which were required to respond to market forces.
“The society we want cannot be achieved without a strong economic
base…Our industry is increasingly faced with rapidly changing international
markets in which success depends on, among other things, the conceptual,creative and technical skills of the labour force, the ability to innovate and beentrepreneurial.” (Dawkins 1988:6)*

Stella Ng is the School Manager and Adjunct Lecturer in the School of Management at the Universityof Technology, Sydney.
**
Keri Spooner is a Senior Lecturer and Graduate Course Co-ordinator in Human Resource
Management in the School of Management at the University of Technology, Sydney.

69

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 2007, 32(2)“Human capital investment came to be seen as instrumental to economic
reform.” (Harman 2003:3)
The needs of business came to dominate the national educational agenda supported bygovernment and this pressure was mainly accepted by university hierarchies withapparently little resistance. Demand for subjects in HRM increased, while those
focussed on industrial relations, labour studies and other ‘less relevant’ fields waned
or at least stagnated (Kelly 2003; Westcott et al 2003). The Australian experience wascommon to that of many industrialised countries (Dunn 1990; Kelly 2003; Kochan etal 1986). Industrial relations in the United States of America, for instance, “suffereda significant decline in intellectual and organizational vitality in the 1980s including ashift in students from IR courses to HR courses” (Kaufman 1993:157).
Academics at the University of Technology, Sydney (UTS) were traditionallyaccustomed to delivering courses which recognised the interests of employers,
employees and unions. During the 1980s and into the 1990s, for example, theuniversity offered post-graduate programs in ‘Industrial Relations and Personnel
Management’ and a typical cohort of students would include individuals from small tolarge private sector organisations, not-for-profit bodies and trade unions. A variety ofsocio-economic backgrounds and current work experiences was evident among thestudents, although women were certainly under-represented and the tide ofinternational students had not then arrived. Both academics and students within the
School of Business and Public Administration, now the Faculty of Business, at UTS
and its predecessor the NSW Institute of Technology1, somewhat naturally focussed
their attention upon the issues of the day which were greatly influenced by the thenhigh levels of unionisation and collectivism evident in Australian workplaces.
As the level of unionisation fell, so also did demand for courses in IR. Although thefigures vary, ILO figures indicate a 29.6% decline in union density in Australia
between 1985 and 1995 to 35.2%, with New Zealand experiencing an amazing 55.1%
decline during the same period to a 24.3% unionisation rate (ILO 1997). Kelly seesthe ‘sharp shock’ to IR academics as occurring around 1990 when “the influences onacademic IR came from the sometimes anti-intellectual and overtly managerialist
claims of HRM” (2003: 151). Accurate data concerning the fate of IR teaching isdifficult to obtain. The titles of university departments, courses and subjects may notprovide an accurate indication of the subject matter taught nor are actual numbers ofstudent enrolments for units of study or courses in industrial relations readily
available. However, a study conducted by Westcott et al (2003) analysed the resultsof two different surveys conducted in 1990 and 2001 concerning the relative positionof IR courses and programs at Australian universities. Although the authors note that‘the surveys are not directly comparable’, they found that“…although there has been a substantial increase in the teaching of HRM, IR
as a discipline has not been completely eroded and in places has proved to beresilient and adaptable to the challenge posed by HRM, in many instances
incorporating and accommodating HRM into IR programs” (Westcott et al
2003: 179).
1

NSWIT became UTS in 1987

70

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 2007, 32(2)They also noted that “a number of the subjects and programs in IR identified in the1990 survey have disappeared” (Westcott et al, 2003: 181). Although IR as adiscipline taught in universities may ‘not been completely eroded’ by 2003, moreaccurate and contemporary data would surely evidence its significant decline as anarea of teaching and learning. In recent years the Department of Industrial Relations atSydney University, the site of the first Chair of Industrial Relations in Australia, hasbeen renamed the Department of Work and Organisational Studies and the once world
recognised Department of Industrial Relations at the University of New South Wales
has been renamed the Department of Industrial Relations and Organisational
Behaviour.
When the pressure mounted during the 1990s to provide courses more attuned to thechanging market, post-graduate courses at UTS assumed the nomenclature of‘Employment Relations’ (ER). These programs focussed upon what is now known as
HR but included a substantial treatment of IR issues. Throughout the 1990s, there wasa continuing pressure to shift the focus of programs to HRM. By moving from a focus
upon IR and PM to that of ER, academics at UTS were able to thwart the pressure for
an HRM focus for some time. The resistance to moving to a HRM focus was based
upon academic as well as ideological concerns. The subject matter of HRM wasviewed as being less academic, more descriptive and a less encompassing study of theemployment relationship than offered by subjects in IR and/or ER. There was concernthat the teaching of HRM would require a shift from a pluralist to a unitarist
perspective. Many of these concerns were expressed in the conference on ‘EthicalIssues in Contemporary Human Resource Management’ held at Imperial College
Management School in April 1996 which was jointly sponsored by the British
Universities Industrial Relations Association and the European Business Ethics
Network, UK (Winstanley, Woodall & Heery 1996). “Running through many of thepapers and much of the discussion at the conference was a conviction that key
developments in contemporary HRM were threatening employment standards”(Winstanley, Woodall & Heery 1996: 5).
By the turn of the new millennium, it was clear that academic attachments to IR
and/or ER for teaching or researching purposes in the context of the Faculty ofBusiness at UTS were a prescription for obsolescence. A senior member of theFaculty floated the concept that there were millions of Indian females who wanted to
study HRM and that their preferred country of study was Australia. During the period
2002-3, the pressure to shift the focus of core units and course offerings at the
postgraduate level to HRM became irresistible. At the same time, the Facultycommenced the process of achieving accreditation with the Advance Collegiate
School of Business (AACSB) and this was to have a significant and beneficial impact
upon the focus and content of the HRM subjects taught at UTS2. AACSB provided arationale and a depth for these studies which had not been earlier envisaged. HRM
could be taught from the perspective of how it might contribute to good corporate
governance with in depth consideration of associated ethical issues.
In this paper, the nature and implications of AACSB accreditation upon the teachingof HRM are examined. The paper begins with an examination of the role of the2

Initial accreditation by the AACSB was granted in December 2006.

71

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 2007, 32(2)AACSB and a discussion as to why its accreditation was pursued by UTS. The
assignment of a key learning goal (KLG) to the core HRM post-graduate subject
focussed upon good corporate governance is discussed in terms of its implications forteaching and assessment. The implications of this change in focus for how students
and staff experienced the teaching and learning of this subject are considered in termsof various quality indicators. The conclusion reached is that although aspects of thequality assurance process were viewed as problematic by many staff, the relevance ofthe core HRM unit for students and their overall satisfaction with the subject has
increased considerably.

What is the AACSB?
The Advance Collegiate School of Business (AACSB) International is a not-for-profit
corporation of educational institutions, corporations and other organizations devoted
to the promotion and improvement of higher education in business administration andmanagement (Hedin, Barnes & Chen 2005).
AACSB International was founded in 1916 and its aims are to support and encourage
excellence in management education worldwide. AACSB International is the premieraccrediting agency for bachelor, master and doctoral degree programs in businessadministration and accounting and it began its accreditation function with the
adoption of the first standards in 1919. Its founding members include Columbia
University, Cornell University, Dartmouth College, Harvard University, New York
University, University of California at Berkeley and Yale University(www.aacsb.edu). In 1980, additional standards were adopted for accounting
programs. Ten years later, AACSB International members approved mission-linked
accreditation standards and the peer review process based on the Porter and McKibbin
finding (Herdin, Barnes & Chen 2005). In 2003, members approved a revised set ofstandards that would emphasise ‘assurance of learning’ (Black & Duhon 2003) whichwere considered to be relevant and applicable to all business programs globally(Herdin, Barnes & Chen 2005). In addition to its accreditation function, AACSBInternational also conducts various development programs for faculty andadministrators; engages in research and survey projects on topics specific to the fieldof management education; maintains relationships with disciplinary associations andother groups; interacts with the corporate community on a variety of projects andinitiatives; and produces a wide variety of publications and special reports on trends
and issues within management education. Furthermore, AACSB International
maintains close relationships with its counterpart associations worldwide(www.aacsb.edu).

Reasons for UTS to obtain AACSB accreditation and the process
The higher education sector has become increasingly complex over the course of thepast twenty years. Universities are faced with a wide range of new challenges,
including demands for higher level of accountability of outputs, a shift in the relative
numbers of local and international students, increasing competition for externalfunding, and an increase in expectation on the part of students. These new
expectations create a challenge for universities in that they need to develop strategies
to meet them, and to satisfy a diverse group of stakeholders that include business,
local community, students, faculty and accrediting bodies (Black & Duhon 2003). The
72

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 2007, 32(2)quest to develop and redefine Master of Business Administration (MBA) degree
programs to better fit the needs of business and students is well documented(Simpson, Sturges, Woods & Altman 2005; Emiliani 2004).
As the higher education sector becomes more complex and competitive, many
universities are working to refocus their efforts towards meeting these challenges,
especially by way of continuous quality improvement and accreditation tointernationally recognised standards. The role of the accrediting body is to assure thatan institution meets some minimum standards of performance and maintains an
acceptable academic program (Harman & Meek 2000).
In response to the challenges already mentioned, the Faculty of Business at UTS
began to explore methods to improve its business and education processes. It soughtto acquire a world-class accreditation to attract overseas students who have the belief
that formal accreditation is an indicator of high standard and high quality programs.
AACSB International accreditation assures stakeholders that accredited businessschools:•••••

Manage resources to achieve a vibrant and relevant mission.
Advance business and management knowledge through faculty scholarship.
Provide high-calibre teaching of quality and current curricula.
Cultivate meaningful interaction between students and a qualified faculty.
Produce graduates who have achieved specified learning goals(www.aacsb.edu/accreditation).

The process of AACSB accreditation begins with the hopeful institution advising the
AACSB of their desire to be accredited. The AACSB appoints a Peer Committee ofrepresentatives of accredited institutions. Once the committee is assigned andaccepted, the institution begins a process of self-evaluation. Over the course of a one
year period, data is collected and assembled to demonstrate adherence to a list of
twenty-one standards (see Appendix A), and a report is prepared documenting thecollection process and the measured outcomes. The Peer Committee then visits theinstitution to examine the prepared documentation and to interview a number ofacademic staff, administrative staff and currently enrolled students. Finally, theCommittee prepares a report of their findings that will include a recommendation thatthe institution be granted accreditation or a series of recommendations for
improvement necessary for accreditation within an agreed timeline.
In July 2001, the Faculty of Business at UTS was admitted to the AACSB precandidacy and a mentor was appointed by the AACSB. However, due to a number offactors, including a new set of standards and procedures being instituted by AACSB,
in early 2003 the Faculty re-submitted its eligibility application and was approved
under the new system with a new mentor. The Faculty began its involvement in the
AACSB accreditation process by conducting a ‘self-evaluation report’ to assess its
readiness to acquire the accreditation and the initial focus at postgraduate level wasupon the Faculty’s Master of Business Administration (MBA).

73

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 2007, 32(2)Development and assigning of KLGs for core MBA subjects
Diagram 1 shows the structure of the review committee established by the Faculty.
The review committee was composed of two representatives from each school, two
student representatives, two industry advisors, a representative from and Teaching and
Learning Unit and three sub-committees (Mandarin MBA, Executive MBA andInternational MBA).
DIAGRAM 1: Structure of the AACSB Accreditation Review Committee

Schools’Representatives

Student
Representatives
Chair

Industry
Advisory Panel

Teaching and
Learning rep

Sub Committee
Mandarin MBA

Executive MBA

International MBA

An extended process of compiling detailed documentation of all MBA subjects andexamination of key learning goals was conducted at UTS as shown in Diagram 2.
The MBA program is comprised of 96 credit points made up of eight compulsory core
subjects and eight elective subjects, all of six credit point value. Electives can betaken to achieve a major, two sub-majors, or a sub-major plus four discrete electives.
A core subject in the MBA is HRM and students may undertake a series of subjects toachieve a HRM major or sub-major. One of the agreed key requirements for the UTS
MBA program is the delivery of an ‘integrating experience’ across the program. A
series of consultative meetings with key academic staff, MBA-core subject
coordinators and administrative staff led to the compilation of a set of consistent andcomplimentary learning goals for the entire program, consistent with the mission
statement of the Faculty of Business:“A vibrant, city-based Faculty in a culturally diverse University. We createand disseminate leading-edge knowledge and deliver industry-relevant courses
which produce forward-thinking, work-ready graduates. We provide higher
education, professional services and research in ways that engage with, andstrengthen our constituent communities.”

74

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 2007, 32(2)DIAGRAM 2: Development of Key Learning Goals Flowchart
Initial KLGs
From previous MBA review

Circulate to Review Committee
Clarification on issue of objectives and learning outcome

Seek advice from
Teaching and Learning
Unit

Development of
KLGs

Feedback from
Student survey

KLGs Metrics•Mapping to a learning outcome•Direct link with the faculty mission andvisions

Revised KLGs

As shown in Table 1, nine MBA Learning Goals were identified and subject
coordinators identified the specific core subjects best suited to the attainment ofparticular goals, each seen to contribute to a tenth and integrating KLG based upon
the Faculty’s mission to produce students who are forward thinking and work-ready.
TABLE 1: Assessment of Learning Goals
1
2
3

4

5

6

7

Learning Goal
To apply core business skills to problem
analysis and decision-making.
To enhance work-ready expertise in a selectedarea of specialisation.
To be able to communicate in a variety offorms across culturally diverse businessenvironments.
To develop strategic responses to current andfuture issues facing Australian and global
business environments.
To be able to use information and businesssupport systems to monitor issues, problems
and opportunities affecting business.
To be able to reflectively apply leading-edgebusiness theory to practical problem solving
options and strategies
To develop an awareness of the principles of
ethics and corporate governance in a variety ofsettings.

Assessed in
21715 Strategic Management
Specialised majors and submajors
24734 Marketing Management(and 24746*)
21715 Strategic Management
22747
Accounting
Managerial Decisions
22784*)

for(and

21718 Organisation Analysis
and Design (and 21865*)
21720
Human
Resource
Management (and 21866*)75

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 2007, 32(2)8

To develop the capacity to take a leadership
21813 Managing People (androle in business situations.
21867*)
9
To access and critically interpret business
25706
Economics
forstatistics and apply them in changing business
Management (and 25745*)
environments.
*MBA students with limited work experience (LWE) are required to undertake LWE versionsof each of the core MBA subjects.

ER to HRM: “Thank God for AACSB”
In contemporary times, few fields of academic endeavour have experienced the extent
of relentless attack witnessed by those in the fields of IR. Through an historicalperspective, it may be surmised that the study of IR will be seen as an area ofacademic inquiry dependent upon the existence of a critical mass of unionism,
beginning with the seminal work of Dunlop (1958) and declining with the birth of
economic rationalism in about the 1980s and dying but not dead by the turn of the
new millennium. Although Kelly (2003) provides considerable insights to the impactof the rising star of HRM upon the teaching of IR, the nature of the battle, pressures
for the change, implications for not only what was taught and learnt but moreover forthe role of academic institutions and their relationship with key stakeholders have notbeen fully documented. The salient fact is that a focus on IR has been replaced by afocus on HRM in most Australian and New Zealand educational institutions.
At UTS, and at many other academic institutions, the pressure to move from an IR
focus to one which more adequately recognised the importance of HRM was resisted
for a multiplicity of reasons. ‘Self-interest’ has been often cited within university
contexts as a major cause of the resistance to change and it is somewhat self-evident
that individuals who have invested their academic careers in a particular field will be
reluctant to see it abolished. Academic self-interest, however, cannot alone explain
this resistance because IR is a multi-disciplinary field of study and, has in fact been
demonstrated, IR academics may move fairly easily into other areas includingorganisational studies and HRM; (eg Tipples et al, 2005) and their important work
concerning Dairy Farm Employment in New Zealand. The resistance by IR academics
was, of course, their contribution to a battle which they could see was being waged
between the forces of collectivism versus individualism, between the recognition ofworkers’ rights and the needs of the organisation, between a pluralistic versus
unitarist view of the working world and, ultimately, between a role of the university
as an institution for the generation and promotion of knowledge vis a vis one focusedupon producing managers for industry.
Academic research interests were a further reason for resistance to change in teachingcommitments. Academics generally teach and research within the same field andcertainly academic promotion requires research output which is within the same
disciplinary area as that taught. Although Hattie and Marsh (1996) argue, on the basisof their research, that the relationship between research and teaching in universities iszero, most research active academics are in fact focussed upon issues relevant to thosetheir general teaching commitments although research may often be upon particularissues not specifically taught in classes. It is generally viewed that research should
inform teaching and that, indeed, such a relationship is an important characteristic of auniversity. For industrial relations academics, a requirement to focus their teaching on

76

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 2007, 32(2)HRM, represented an additional threat in the form of the implications for theirresearch.
The pressure to move from the teaching of IR to HRM subjects arose during the
1980’s and 1990’s, was expressed within multiple layers of university administrationand culminated at UTS, and many other institutions, in the adoption an employment
relations (ER) nomenclature and focus. ER was essentially a half-way house, with its
increased focus on HRM aspects and a reduced focus on what was traditionally seenas IR subjects, although many academics argued that it was indeed more than this,being a focus on what was actually occurring at the workplace level through a multidisciplinary perspective (Spooner & Haidar 2006; Mortimer & Leece 2002). Whether
a legitimate new academic area inquiry or not, ER at UTS would not survive for long.
It simply did not satisfy the market requirements for courses in HRM. Growing
numbers of international students had no interest in learning about antiquatedAustralian models of industrial relations and this was clearly where the future UTS
market lay. The percentage of local students actually working in business was
declining and even among these, interest in IR was quickly waning. Surveys ofstudents demonstrated clearly that they sought subjects which would equip them toobtain jobs in organisations and that they saw subjects in HRM as being relevant totheir needs.
It was difficult, no doubt, for dinosaurs to recognise that the environment could nolonger support them. Their resistance to change was mirrored at many levels ofAustralian and New Zealand society. As the unemployed became underemployed, as
workers became sole traders, as the working class assumed the identity of middle
class with credit card debts, as the café latté society grew, as ‘can do’ and ‘noproblems’ came to replace dissidence and opposition, IR and ER fell into thedetestable trough of yesterday’s conflict and dissidence (consider Hamilton &Maddison, 2007). Out of the ashes arose HRM, the study of how business can best
manage human beings to achieve the greatest efficiency and profit from them, and,even more strategic in its focus and purpose, the study of Strategic HRM.
Through an historical perspective, it may be difficult to imagine why academics in thefield of IR/ER would resist the enticements of the new HRM paradigm, but they did.
Self-interest aside, there was considerable concern among UTS academics, and manyothers, that the shift to teaching HRM subjects would result in their acting as clones ofbusinesses, that they would be required to sacrifice their theoretical knowledge andfocus on administrative aspects of ‘how to do’ HRM. Notwithstanding the focus on‘strategic’ HRM, it was difficult for many academics of the IR/ER persuasion, with
their backgrounds often deeply rooted in law, sociology and history, to see HRM as
much more than a crudely constructed and rather simplistic study of how businessshould manage the human beings that work for them.
It was in this context that IR/ER academics in the Faculty Business at UTS foundthemselves by 2001 confronted with the imperative to move to an HRM paradigm inteaching postgraduate subjects. Then, along came AACSB. The first ray of lightsuggesting that the teaching of HRM might have depth and real meaning beyond thatof a captured tool of business interests came at the meeting of subject co-ordinators
focused upon the KLGs set out in Table 1 above. At that meeting, the postgraduate
HRM subject achieved the KLG: To develop an awareness of the principles of ethics

77

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 2007, 32(2)and corporate governance in a variety of settings. The adoption of this KLG was
immediately and enthusiastically embraced because of its potential to lift the teachingof HRM from a managerial, unitarist frame of reference to one which consideredpluralist interests in the context of ethics and good corporate governance.

Quality assurance requirements for the teaching and learning of
HRM
Once the learning goals were defined and assigned to specific core subjects, academic
co-ordinators were required to develop or modify subject content including particularassessment items which, when completed by students, demonstrated their attainmentof the goals. The importance of ethics, as a curriculum topic, is widely recognised anda study by Schoenfeldt, McDonaldand and Youngblood (1991) found that even then,ethics received significant coverage at over 90 percent of the institutions surveyed.
Although ethical considerations had formed a part of the content of IR/ER/HRM
subjects taught at UTS, they had not previously been a central focus of the subject.
In developing the revised HRM core subject, it was found that although a number ofinternationally recognised texts did provide some treatment of the subject from an
ethics and corporate governance perspective, none provided an integrated andthorough study. It was decided that although an HRM text would be used, the actual
teaching of the subject would commence with a consideration of the Australian Stock
Exchange (ASX) Principles of Good Corporate Governance and Best Practice
Recommendations (www.asx.com.au) and that students would be challenged toconsider each aspect of the functioning of HRM in terms of these principles. Further
guidance in the development of required readings was obtained from a variety ofsources including the review of published sources by Trezise (1996).
In practice, this resulted in the teaching of HRM along the lines set out by the majorprescribed texts (Dessler 2004; Stone 2005) with the injection of ‘ethical’ and ‘good
corporate governance’ considerations at every stage. In the first lecture, students wererequired to consider the range of ethical dilemmas and time was spent in exploringthese. The purpose, of course, was to lay the foundations for an understanding of therole of HRM within a dynamic multiple stakeholder context with responsibilities tothe whole of society. ‘Strategic HRM’ is presented within the Beer et al (1984) modeland students are invited to consider the varying interests of different stakeholders, toconsider the different possible methods for achieving outcomes. When considering,for instance, recruitment, students are required to identify the ethical dilemmas. For
example, is it ethical to advertise a position externally when it is known that theperson specification is designed for someone already within the organisation?
Similarly, is it ethical to spend huge amounts of money advertising a position
externally, attracting individuals from outside organisations, when the organisation
has a favoured candidate? Such ethical considerations and dilemmas are introduced toeach as element of the teaching and learning of HRM and, upon discussion, are rarely
found to present a clear ‘correct’ answer. The purpose is to expose students to thecomplexity of decision making within the HRM paradigm and to assist them indeveloping their analytical skills and awareness of ethical concerns.

78New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 2007, 32(2)Students are also exposed to the importance of the role of HRM for ‘good corporate
governance’. Each step of HRM practice is explored in these terms. For instance,
students are required to consider the role of job descriptions, remuneration policy andperformance management processes in contributing to good corporate governance.
Thus, a strong focus of attention in the teaching and learning of all aspects of HRM is
upon the ethical issues associated with policies, processes and their implementation as
well as the role which each element of HRM can play in supporting good corporate
governance.
Subject curriculum was developed which provided that the attainment of this KLG
would be assessed through a report worth 40% of the total grade for the subject:“Students are required to individually develop and submit a strategic HR plan for an
organisation. The plan must outline the key HRM objectives and how they willcontribute to the overall business plan. Critical awareness of the ethical implications of
the plan must be evident as well as a clear understanding of how the plan will contributeto improve corporate governance. Relevant literature should be used and cited.”
Two specific quality assurance measurements were developed to assess both theoverall effectiveness of the teaching and learning experience as well as the assuranceof KLGs. First, a Student Feedback Survey (SFS) provides the basis for a system ofteaching evaluation and is viewed as a key quantitative quality measurement
instrument at UTS. A SFS is conducted toward the end of each teaching semester.
Secondly, subject coordinators are required to report to the Faculty the results
achieved by all students in the assessment task aimed at testing their achievement of
the subject’s KLG. Hence, in addition to reporting students’ results for a subject
overall, a separate report detailing the results of the KLG assessment task is required.

Evaluating the implications of AACSB for the teaching and learningof HRM
Although the process of seeking AACSB accreditation began in 2001, the new MBA
KLGs were first integrated into the subject content offered to students in 2004. There
are three sources of data used in this paper to evaluate the implications of thesechanges for teaching and learning in the core HRM unit of the MBA. First, student
feedback through the subject evaluations conducted through the SFS for 2003-5 arecompared. Secondly, HRM teaching staff were asked to evaluate the impact of the
KLG upon their teaching experience in HRM. Thirdly, the co-ordinators of core MBA
subjects and associated administrators were asked for their views regarding thequality assurance process.
First, the results of Student Feedback Surveys conducted by the Faculty 2003-5
demonstrate a significant improvement in student perceptions of the quality of thecore HRM subject. The SFS questionnaire requires students to indicate theiragreement on a five point Likert scale. Student agreement on all quality assurance
measures rose between Spring semesters 2003-4 including, as illustrated in Figure 1,
those assessing the relevance of the subject to the student, clarity of expectations,fairness of assessment and the receiving of constructive feedback. According to theresults of the Spring 2005 SFS, HRM was rated one of the top two MBA classic core
subjects as assessed by the question: “Overall, I am satisfied with the quality of this79

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 2007, 32(2)subject”. The results indicate a significant improvement in student satisfaction withthe core HRM subject during the period in which the subject material was refocussed
to address the ethical dimensions of HRM and the role of HRM in assuring good
corporate governance.

Rating (5 points sca

FIGURE 1: HRM Subject Feedback Survey results 2003-4

5
4
3
2
1
0
This subject
was releventto me

Spr 2003
Aut2004
Spr 2004

I had a clear
idea of whatwas
expected ofme in thissubject

I foundassessment
fair andreasonable

I received
constructive
feedback
whenneededSubject Feedback Survey Questions

Secondly, in Spring 2005 all postgraduate HRM teaching staff were asked to evaluate
the impact of the KLG upon their teaching experience in HRM. A focus group wasformed consisting of the six lecturers engaged in the teaching of postgraduate HRM
core units (21720 and 21866) and the group was asked to respond to a single openended question “what is your experience of teaching in the core HRM unit?” Each of
the lecturers had more than five years lecturing experience in postgraduate HRM
subjects at UTS, as well as lecturing experience at other universities, and were
therefore well placed to provide useful insights to the implications of the changes
made to the subject. Their responses were overwhelmingly positive in terms of how
they personally experienced teaching in the subject. One respondent summed up quite
well the views expressed by others:“I am very comfortable teaching HRM through an ethics and corporate
governance perspective. I really think that it provides the subject with a depththat would otherwise be difficult to find. By adopting this focus in the teachingof all key aspects of HRM, it is possible to teach HRM through a pluralist
perspective and not relegate the subject to a coaching of managementadministrative tools.”
However, members of the focus group were generally more sceptical about the
implications for students’ learning, as summarised by one member:

80

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 2007, 32(2)“I think students are enjoying the subject more and believe it is more relevant
because we are citing ASX Principles… basically, they are predominantlyinternational students wanting visas and focused on accounting
qualifications… they are not really interested in HRM but at least now they
think that it might help them.”
Further, all members of the focus group were sceptical regarding the longer term andexpressed views along the lines of :“Ethics and corporate governance are important. So was ‘being internationallyfocused’, the ‘trade mark’ of the Faculty a few years ago, which was followedby ‘being strategic’, now its ethics and corporate governance. What will be
next?”
Thirdly, an interview survey was conducted in Spring 2006 with a sample population
comprised of half of the core MBA subject coordinators (N=4) and two members ofadministrative staff. The interviews were conducted informally with a single openended question “what is your experience on the reporting process of assurance oflearning goals in relation to your workload”. Interviewees were encouraged toelaborate and extend on any issues or ideas so as to bring forward their own
perspectives. The interviews provided useful insights to staff perceptions of theirexperiences in dealing with the reporting requirements, rather than concreteconclusions. While several respondents questioned the wisdom of the Faculty seeking
AACSB accreditation, it was clear from the responses that there was a strong sense of
the importance of continuous quality improvement among the core MBA subject
coordinators:“It re-clarifies the teaching objectives in this subject, even though they were
known before. Maybe it is one of the reasons that this subject has become
more popular.”
Although there was strong support for the adoption of a sharper focus to subjects
through the integration of KLGs in subject material, there was also a view that theactual reporting process was tedious and a waste of academic time:“My experience is that the process is largely an administrative chore - fillingout forms that have little to do with the actual running of the subject. It is notreally a difficult thing to do but does not add any education value to thesubject itself.”“My view is that the people who decide on what the metrics are should fill in
the reports! Often co-ordinators have no information as to how the objectives
set for their courses fit with the overall MBA and the AACSB, and onreflection the comments are probably not selling the course, the MBA or theschool effectively. I think overall more information should be given by the
MBA team.”“Compiling the forms should be easy but it isn’t because part-time lecturers
persist in submitting results in a form which does not facilitate copying,81New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 2007, 32(2)pasting and compilation. If admin could deliver the final ‘Student Result’forms a few weeks earlier in semester, the whole thing would be much easier
to deal with. By the time we receive the final listing, lecturers have alreadydeveloped their own reporting forms. Compiling these into one document is areal pain!”
Similarly, one member of the administrative staff expressed a view that was generally
shared:“Here it goes again another academic task without system support and it
eventually ends up on my desk.”

Summary and Conclusions
In this paper, we have outlined the key implications of seeking AACSB accreditation
for the core subjects in the UTS MBA program and demonstrated the benefit of using
the implication of the AACBS quality assurance to improve one of the core-MBA
subjects, that being the HRM subject.
The teaching of HRM at a postgraduate level at UTS was profoundly influenced by
the AACSB accreditation process as it occurred at the very time that academic staff
were required to shift from an IR/ER to HRM focus. Although AACSB accreditation
may be beneficial for UTS, it is not at all apparent at the level of teaching HRM at theactual accreditation makes any difference. However, it is very clear that the process of
seeking AACSB accreditation had a profound and positive influence on the teaching
and learning of HRM. Deeply held academic staff concerns regarding this change andits implications for the depth, breadth and meaningfulness of subject content weresignificantly alleviated by the adoption of an appropriate KLG. The fear of teaching
HRM through a unitarist perspective, ignoring the interests of multiple stakeholders
and focusing upon the ‘strategic’ role of HRM as a tool for business interests was
replaced by the opportunity to focus instead upon the ethical issues confronting HRM
in every aspect of its functions and genuinely exploring the challenges to HRM
flowing from its multiple constituency and the requirement that it contributes
meaningly, consistently and ethically to the achievement of good corporate
governance.
Although it is not possible from this study to state that the AACSB accreditation
process resulted in an improved postgraduate HRM subject, the results of student
evaluations and staff feedback certainly suggests that this was the case. Whether such
improvements might have occurred in the absence of the AACSB accreditation
process cannot be known. Student evaluations from 2003-5 clearly illustrate an
improvement in quality assurance measures and staff feedback indicates a significant
improvement in staff teaching satisfaction.
It would also seem, however, that the additional administrative responsibilities
associated with reporting quality assurance measures have not been well received byacademic or administrative staff. There was a continuous pressure from senior
management to compile and to follow the newly implemented procedural process as
part of AACSB accreditation, which has not been accompanied by a shared82

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 2007, 32(2)commitment among academic staff. This was understandable when some academics
perceived it as an administrative task rather than an academic responsibility. A
perception that the AACSB was merely the ‘Flavour of the Month’, was also evident
in staff interviews. Some members of academic staff considered that the choice ofaccreditation was inappropriate and some complained that there was a lack ofconsultation.
One of the obvious sources of conflict and frustration by academic and administrative
staff was the lack of additional administrative and IT support in the new process. A
breakdown in understanding between academic and administrative units created an
unnecessary increase in workload for academics at the end of each semester. As partof the reporting process, academics are required to enter each assessment result into a
Subject Listing Sheet (SLS) in week ‘17 or 18’. Some subject coordinators are
required to enter hundreds of items of data per day due to last minute release of forms,
along with demands for immediate returns.
In conclusion, the coordinator of the postgraduate HRM program at UTS offered thefollowed insight:“I love AACSB and its implications for the teaching of postgraduate HRM at
UTS. I do understand that some academics are excited and interested inteaching HRM, particularly through what is termed a ‘strategic’ perspective.
For me, the teaching of HRM represents a sad, diminished and ultimately
wasteful use of university resources. Strategic or not, the study of HRM as
represented in even the foremost texts is essentially concerned with how
people can be best recruited, remunerated and performance managed and, in
my view, this would be better taught in technical colleges than in universities,
unless we fully accept a much diminished role for universities. The
opportunity to teach HRM through an ethics and corporate governance
perspective has uplifted the subject area by providing a rationale, accepted andsupported within the university hierarchy, for the questioning and serious
analysis of the ethical issues confronting HRM as well as the detailed
consideration of how HRM should and can contribute to the good corporate
governance of organisations as viewed from a multiple stakeholder
perspective. It is not clear to me as to whether the actual gaining of AACSB
will make any difference at the level of teaching HRM, although it iscommonly asserted that accreditation is important to attracting future students.
However, the results to date indicate that the journey has been more important
than the destination.”83

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 2007, 32(2)References
AdvanceCollegiate
Schoolww.aacsb.edu/accreditation.

ofBusiness(AACSB)(2006):

Australian Stock Exchange (ASX) Principles of Good Corporate Governance andBest Practice Recommendations: www.asx.com.au.
Airini, S., McNaughton, A. & Langley, J. (with Pale Sauni, P.) (2006). What
Educational Reform Means: Lessons From Teachers, Research And Policy Working
Together For Student Success, Paper presented at the Asia Pacific Education Research
Association Conference 28-30 November 2006, Hong Kong.
Beer, H., Walter, G., Macklin, R.L. & Patchett, P.J. (1984). Managing Human Assets.
New York: Free Press.
Biggs, J. & Davis, R. (eds) .(2002). The Subversion of Australian Universities,
Wollongong:
Fund For Intellectual Dissent. Available on the web at
http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/dissent/documents/sau/.
Black, H.T. & Duhon, D.L. (2003). Evaluating and Improving Student Achievementin Business Programs: The Effective Use of Standardized Assessment Tests. Journalof Education for Business. 79 (2). Nov/Dec.
Brand, V. (1999). Decline In The Reform Of Law Teaching?: The Impact
of Policy Reforms In Tertiary Education. Legal Education Review. 10 (2): 109-41.
Dawkins, J. (1987). Higher Education: A Discussion Paper. Canberra: AGPS.
Dawkins, J. (1988). Higher Education: A Policy Statement. Canberra: AGPS.
Dessler, G. (2004). Management. New Jersey: Prentice Hall
Dunlop, J. (1958). Industrial Relations Systems, Imprint Carbondale, Ill: Southern
Illinois: Uni. Press.
Dunn, S. (1990). Root Metaphor in the Old and New Industrial Relations. British
Journal of Industrial Relations. 28(1): 1–31.
Emiliani, M. L. (2004). Improving Business School Courses By Applying Lean
Principles and Practices. Quality Assurance in Education. 12 (4):175-187.
Hamilton, C. & Maddison, S. (Eds) (2007) Silencing Dissent: How the AustralianGovernment is Controlling Public Opinion and Stifling Debate, Crows Nest: Allen &Unwin.
Hattie, J. & Marsh, H.W. (1996). The Relationship between Research and Teaching:
A Meta-Analysis. Review of Educational Research. 66(4):507-542

84

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 2007, 32(2)Harman, G. & Meek, V.L. (2000). Repositioning Quality Assurance andAccreditation in Australian Higher Education, Department of Education Training and
Youth Affairs. Canberra.
Harman, G. (2003). A decade of Change. National report on Higher Education inAustralia. Department of Education, Science and Training.
Hedin, S.R., Barnes, C.H. & Chen, J.C.H. (2005). AACSB 2003 Accreditation
Standards: Impact on Continuous Quality Improvement. International Journal ofServices and Standards. 1(3): 358 - 378.
International Labour Organisation (ILO) (1997). Press Release November 4; Ref:
ILO/97/28.
Kaufman, B. E. (1993). The Origins & Evolution Of The Field Of Industrial Relations
In The United States. New York: Cornell University Press.
Kelly, D. (2003). A Shock to the System? The Impact of HRM on Academic IR in
Australia in Comparison with USA and UK, 1980–95. Asia Pacific Journal of Human
Resources, 41(2): 149-71.
Kochan, T., Katz, H. & McKersie, R. (1986). The Transformation of American
Industrial Relations. New York: Basic Books.
Marginson, S. (1997). Steering from a distance: Power relations in Australian Higher
Education. Higher Education. 34(1): 63-80.
Mortimer, D. & Leece, P. (2002). Search for Theoretical Focus: Human Resource
Management or Employment Relations? International Employment Relations Review.
8(2):17-26.
Schoenfeldt, L. F., McDonald D. M. & Youngblood, S. A. (1991). The Teaching ofBusiness Ethics: A Survey Of AACSB Member Schools. Journal of Business Ethics.
10(3): 237-241.
Simpson, R., Sturges, J., Woods, A. & Altman, Y. (2005). Gender, Age, and The
MBA: An Analysis Of Extrinsic And Intrinsic Career Benefits. Journal ofManagement Education. 29(2): 218-47.
Spooner, K. & Haidar, A. (2006). Defining the Employment Relationship.
International Journal of Employment Studies. 14(2): 63:82.
Stone, R.J. (2005). Human Resource Management (5th ed.). Brisbane: Jacaranda
Wiley.
Tipples, R., Wilson, J., Edkins, R. & Sun, X. (2005). Future Dairy Farm Employment
in New Zealand - An Application of the Human Capability Framework. Employment
Relations Record. 5(1): 27-40.

85

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 2007, 32(2)Trezise, E. K. (1996). Review Article: An Introduction to Business Ethics for Human
Resource Management Teaching and Research. Personnel Review, 25(6): 85 – 89.
Westcott, M., Wailes, N., Todd, T. & Bailey, J. (2003). The HRM Challenge and the
Teaching of IR at Australian Universities”, Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources,
41(2): 172-189.
Winstanley, D., Woodall, J. & Heery, E. (1996). Business Ethics and Human
Resource Management: Themes and Issues. Personnel Review. 25(6): 5-12.
UTS: http://www.business.uts.edu.au/about/teaching.
Ziguras, C. (2003). The Impact of the GATS on Transnational Tertiary Education:
Comparing Experiences of New Zealand, Australia, Singapore and Malaysia.
Australian Educational Researcher. 30(3): 89-109.

Appendix A – AACSB Standards
Standard 1: Mission Statement
Standard 2: Mission AppropriatenessStandard 3: Student Mission
Standard 4: Continuous Improvement Objectives
Standard 5: Financial Strategies
Standard 6: Student Admission
Standard 7: Student Retention
Standard 8: Support Staff Sufficiency/Student Support
Standard 9: Academic Staff Sufficiency
Standard 10: Academic Staff Qualifications
Standard 11: Academic Staff Management and Support
Standard 12: Aggregate Academic and Support Staff Educational Responsibility
Standard 13: Individual Teaching Staff Educational Responsibility
Standard 14: Individual Students Educational Responsibility
Standard 15: Management of Curricula
Standard 16: Undergraduate Learning Goals
Standard 17: Undergraduate Educational Level
Standard 18: MBA Learning Goals
Standard 19: Specialised Master’s degrees Learning Goals
Standard 20: Master’s Educational Level
Standard 21: Doctoral Learning Goals

86

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations (2007), 32(2)University Restructuring and Teaching Quality
CAMERON ALLAN∗, GEORGE LAFFERTY∗∗ AND JOHN BURGESS∗∗∗
Abstract
The pursuit of quality of teaching and learning has become an increasingly important goal ofhigher education in recent decades, as academic staff numbers and public funding have lagged
behind the growth in student numbers. This transformation has been qualitative as well as
quantitative: academic staff are teaching more students from more diverse backgrounds, andusing a greater variety of teaching methods. As with other industries, productivity growth has
also been associated with labour flexibility and work intensification strategies, including
increased numerical and functional flexibility such as workforce casualisation and offshoreteaching. This study provides evidence of the link between the work context and teachingoutcomes based on a survey of academic staff in two universities, one in Australia and one in
New Zealand. Our findings indicate that class size is a critical influence on the effectivenessof teaching and that the current policy emphasis on ‘quality’ assurance has been accompanied
by a pervasive deterioration in quality of teaching and learning outcomes. If academic staff
are to retain some autonomy over their own work and a commitment to student-centred
teaching, they need to develop strategies appropriate to this context – a process to whichcollective bargaining can contribute significantly.

Introduction
The quality of teaching and learning in higher education has received increasing attention inrecent years (Light and Cox, 2001; Trigwell, Martin, Benjamin and Prosser, 2000:155). Thisissue is associated with increasing demands for better learning outcomes, accountability andefficiency from government and from a more diverse, increasingly fee-paying student
population (Goodyear and Hativa, 2002:1). The quality of teaching and learning is now being
systemically assessed through national and institutional quality audits, more rigorous and ongoing evaluations of courses and through university performance management and promotion
systems (Martens and Prosser, 1998). Running parallel to these pressures for formal academic
accountability and efficiency is the increasing management orientation and focus on marketdriven outcomes. This paper assesses some key factors influencing teaching approaches
among business faculty academic staff, focusing on what teachers think and do, rather thanhow students learn. The two are, of course, intimately linked. While there are various external
factors influencing teaching approaches, this paper reinforces the belief that the way teachers
conceive of and approach their teaching has a direct impact on student learning outcomes.

∗ Cameron Allan, Griffith University∗∗

George Lafferty, Victoria University of Wellington∗∗∗

John Burgess, University of Newcastle

87New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations (2007), 32(2)Restructuring the Higher Education Sector in Australia and New ZealandAs with most service sector industries, there is pressure on higher education managers andemployees to accommodate technological developments and internationalisation, combinedwith conflicting demands for improved service quality, reduced costs and increasing
flexibility in service delivery (Clark, 2004; Marginson, 2004). In Australia these pressures arecompounded by more direct control and regulation of academic activity exerted by the central
government, as the provider of an important source of finance for the sector (Sappey, 2006).
Over the past decade real funding per student has declined, students are paying for a growing
share of the costs of higher education, fees have been gradually deregulated, and universities
are becoming increasingly dependent on onshore and offshore full-fee income. The Federal
Government has tied funding to workplace and industrial relations changes, and a new systemof quality accreditation for research (the Research Quality Framework) is being introduced(Clark, 2004; Kniest, 2006; Sappey, 2006). The sector is receiving less funding for doing
more, and in the process student: staff ratios have increased dramatically (Kniest, 2006).
Performance management in Australian universities can be traced back to the late 1980s, andthe conjunction of award restructuring, productivity-based wage bargaining and John
Dawkins’s term as Minister for Employment, Education, and Training. The ‘Dawkins
revolution’ encompassed a rapid growth in student numbers, the end of the ‘binary divide’
separating universities from colleges and institutes of technology, and the tying of university
funding to quantitative indicators of research performance. These factors contributed to an
overall intensification of pressures on academic staff, with the introduction of performance
management schemes and the allocation of resources becoming closely linked to institutional
and individual research performance and productivity (Lowe, 1987; Marginson, 1991, 1992;
Neumann and Lindsay, 1988).
The Howard government’s Research Quality Framework (RQF) and Higher Education
Workplace Relations Requirements (HEWRRs) constitute only the most recent incarnationsof this process. Through the HEWRRs, public funding under the Commonwealth Grants
Scheme was made contingent upon all ‘Higher Education Providers’ (HEPs) introducing suchprovisions as Australian Workplace Agreements and the removal of limits on employing
casual and fixed-term staff, and the requirement for all collective agreements to include ‘a fair
and transparent performance management scheme’ (DEST, 2007). The recent election of the
Rudd ALP government will no doubt change this situation, though how is yet unclear at thetime of writing (December 2007).
The broad shift towards managerialism, increasing student numbers with no equivalent
increase in staffing, and the implementation of quality assurance mechanisms has also
occurred in New Zealand. Yet there are significant differences from the Australianexperience. The implementation of ‘new managerialism’ in New Zealand universities has
been less systematic, with government playing a lesser role. The decentralisation andderegulation of industrial relations implemented through the Employment Contracts Act 1991
eradicated the industrial awards system, removing the kind of institutional framework within
which changes to work and management practices evolved in Australia. Whereas Australianacademic staff typically have to undergo a probationary period of three to five years, there isno equivalent requirement in New Zealand. Universities, like other employers, have limited
scope to enforce probationary periods. Section 67 of the Employment Relations Act 2000
stipulates that, although the employer and employee may agree on a probationary clause in an88New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations (2007), 32(2)employment agreement, the employee cannot be dismissed at the end of the period solely on
the basis of their performance. Therefore, employees on probationary periods have the samerights and entitlements as all other workers, and dismissal requires justification and fair
procedures.
Nor have New Zealand academic staff experienced the kind of direct intervention directed by
the Howard government towards universities and the NTEU. In contrast, the main university
union, the Association of University Staff (AUS) has developed a quite close relationshipwith the current Clark government. For example, the most recent (2006) round of university
collective bargaining was concluded mainly through national-level negotiations between the
AUS, the New Zealand Vice-Chancellors’ Committee and the Minister for Tertiary
Education, Dr Michael Cullen. The Tertiary Education Strategy 2002-2007 has provided thecurrent framework for the development of research and teaching across the New Zealandtertiary sector, which includes universities, polytechnics and various training organisations.
The Tertiary Education Commission (TEC) is the main implementation agency for theStrategy, although it is required to work in liaison with several government departments andagencies. The most prominent (and controversial) ‘quality assurance’ mechanism in New
Zealand’s tertiary sector at present is the Performance Based Research Fund (PBRF). The first
PBRF Quality Exercise occurred in 2003, with a further round in 2006, and can be seen as asystematic implementation of one aspect of ‘new’ managerialism with respect to research,across the tertiary sector (see Curtis 2005). The PBRF, therefore, constitutes significant new
performance management mechanism, with significant implications for university funding
and the careers of academic staff, a further round being scheduled for 2012.
Currently, the Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Act (to take effect from 1 January2008) will have a substantial impact, as it changes the basis of tertiary funding from a model
driven by unrestricted growth in student numbers to one based on three-year investment plans,
taking into account such factors as demographic change, student demand and shifting
economic and educational priorities. This change has already prompted the University of
Auckland to propose restrictions on undergraduate student entry in several disciplines, withthe likelihood that other universities will follow suit. In both Australia and New Zealand,
then, the pursuit of teaching and learning quality is constantly governed by often volatile
policy regimes and student demand, within a considerably more managerialist environment
than in earlier decades. To a significant degree, the developments in higher education reflect
those in other service sector industries, with the significant difference that ‘the market’ is one
constrained and constructed through extensive government intervention in the sector, and thathigher education has been seen traditionally as an integral component of nation-building, witha far broader remit than just the provision of ‘educational services’. The sector has a clear
division between core and peripheral labour, and the casualisation of the workforce has been afeature of the sector as universities switch towards part-time and casual staff to meet the
shortfall in funding (Junor, 2004). Other characteristics of service work are present including
the trend towards internationalisation (Marginson, 2004), with many universities establishingoffshore campuses in Asia and in the Middle East, while IT developments have facilitated
new ways of delivering programs and productivity improvements through reduced costs andincreasing student:staff ratios. Course packages and customisation by international publishers
allow for all aspects of the course to be linked to a given text template and increased productstandardisation – the process of ‘McDonaldization’ described by Ritzer (1993).

89

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations (2007), 32(2)Many of the issues present in call centre work (Burgess and Connell, 2006) are emerging inhigher education. These include the loss of autonomy, the standardisation of work, the closemonitoring of performance and the importance of emotional labour at the service-customer
interface (Sappey, 2006). Indeed, the public rhetoric of universities has shifted towards acustomer and a client focus where the student is a consumer and consumer expectations areincluded in the operating principles of universities (Sappey, 2006). In this context there is anemphasis on teaching quality that is reinforced by student evaluations of courses and teachers,
competitive teaching grants and internal and national teaching awards. However, the questionis, can rising student:staff ratios be compatible with teaching quality?

Teaching and Learning Quality and the Work Context
The educational literature on the effectiveness of teaching and learning provides our firstsource for answering this question. Student learning, for most writers on the topic, should
optimally focus on meaning and not reproduction, and high quality learning outcomes occur
when students adopt a deep approach to learning and seek to find meaning and understanding
in learning materials. Students using a deep approach to learning report that teachers are
effective, workloads are appropriate and standards and goals are clear (Biggs, 2001:16;
Martens and Prosser, 1998:29). Conversely, lower quality learning outcomes occur when
students adopt a surface approach aimed at rote memorising and reproduction to meetexternally imposed demands. Low quality learning outcomes occur where students’ learning
is unstructured, unrelated to their past experiences, and comprises isolated segments of
information that are retained for only a short period. Students using a surface approach tolearning report high workloads and assessment aimed at reproducing learned materials(Biggs; 2001:16; Martens and Prosser, 1998:29). It is clear from this research that the way
subjects are structured, taught and assessed affects the quality of student learning – that is,teaching is fundamental to learning.
Previous research also indicates that academic staff conceive and approach their work asteachers in a number of different ways (Prosser and Trigwell, 2001: 138). At one end of thespectrum, lecturers may adopt a ‘teacher-centred’ approach, viewing teaching as a process oftransmitting information or concepts about their discipline to students. The focus is on facts
and skills but not the interrelationships between them. Prior student knowledge is notconsidered important and it is assumed that students will not be active in the teaching-learning
process (Trigwell, Prosser and Waterhouse, 1999; Trigwell, Prosser and Taylor, 1994).
At the other end of the spectrum, lecturers with a ‘student-centred’ approach help students
develop and reflect upon their views of both the subject they are studying and the world.
Lecturers accept that they cannot transmit a new world view to students and therefore theemphasis is on enabling students to construct their own knowledge. Accordingly, student
activity and prior knowledge are viewed as central to the learning process (Trigwell, Prosser
and Waterhouse, 1999; Trigwell, Prosser and Taylor, 1994).
Some qualitative research indicates that teachers can adopt an intermediate position between
these two main approaches: teacher/student interaction strategy (Prosser, Trigwell and Taylor,1994). Teachers adopting a teacher/student interaction strategy help student acquire theconcepts of the discipline. As in the teacher-centred approach, students are not viewed as
constructing their own knowledge, but, as in the student-centred approach, students are seenas active agents in the teaching-learning process (Prosser and Trigwell, 2001:153).
90

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations (2007), 32(2)Quantitative analysis, however, has provided less support for this construct (Trigwell andProsser, 1996a) and subsequent research has dropped this concept from the study ofapproaches to teaching, to focus instead on the two main types of strategy: teacher-centred
and student-centred. Teacher-centred/knowledge transmission approaches to teaching are
positively associated with surface approaches to student learning and negatively associatedwith deep approaches to learning. Conversely, student-centred or knowledge facilitation
approaches to teaching are positively associated with deep approaches to learning andnegatively associated with surface approaches to learning (Gow and Kember, 1993; Kember
and Gow, 1994; Trigwell and Prosser, 2001; Trigwell, Prosser and Waterhouse, 1999). Whilethe conceptual simplicity of the deep/surface, student-centred/teaching-centred dichotomy
may be questioned (Webb, 2004), it seems reasonable to conclude that student-centred
teaching generally leads to superior learning outcomes than those attained through teachercentred teaching.
The approaches that academics adopt to teaching will be influenced by their prior experiences
and their perceptions of the learning context or environment. Educational research indicatesthat there are five situational factors affecting university teachers’ approaches to teaching.
First, teachers focus on the amount of control they have in teaching. Second, they ask
whether inappropriate class sizes are influencing the amount and quality of teacher-student
interaction. Third, teachers examine the increasing diversity of student characteristics: withthe expansion of higher education, more domestic students with lower levels of academic
success in secondary schooling are gaining access to university, while there has been a rapidly
growing international student population, who sometimes experience English language
difficulties. Fourth, academics assess the extent to which their teaching and research arevalued by their departments or schools. Fifth, university teachers question whether they haveappropriate workloads (Prosser and Trigwell, 1997).
The recognition of the importance of teaching context is particularly important from anindustrial relations perspective. The nature of university work has changed in Australia andoverseas, with the shift from (relatively) ‘elite’ to ‘mass’ higher education (Halsey, 1992).
Academic staff workloads have grown, as higher student:staff ratios have brought moreassessment, teaching and evaluation, while pressure to increase research and scholarly
activities has intensified, within a more competitive research funding environment (Light andCox, 2001:1). Therefore, to understand the teacher-student relationship we need to address thecontext within which that relationship develops.
The implementation of corporate management practices has included much tighter
performance monitoring and the ‘extensive process of routinisation, standardisation andcodification of academic work, emphasising measurable skills and outcomes’ (Lafferty andFleming, 2000:260). These factors have reduced the degree of control that academic staff
retain over their work and their perceptions of the support provided to them by their own
departments (or schools) and universities, and by government. Research by Prosser andTrigwell (1997) on the approaches to teaching and the work context has found that teachers
adopt a student-centred/conceptual change approach where they perceive they have some
control over how and what they teach, their class sizes are not too large to hinder teacherstudent interaction and their department (or school) values teaching. Given this, we would
expect that the student-focused approach is also associated with a context where teachers
perceive that their university provides significant resources to encourage and support highquality teaching. Although Prosser and Trigwell (1997) found no consistent relationship91New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations (2007), 32(2)between elements of the work context and teacher-centred approach, they did find a negative
relationship with class size and a positive relationship with departmental support.

Research Method
This project used two existing survey instruments developed by Prosser and Trigwell. These
instruments have been used for several studies (Trigwell and Prosser, 1996a, 1996b; Prosser
and Trigwell, 1997, 2001). Permission was sought and given to use these instruments. The
survey instrument contained seven separate scales measuring the two main approaches toteaching scales (Trigwell and Prosser, 1996a, 1996b) plus five contextual variable scales fromthe Prosser and Trigwell (1997) study. A survey instrument was constructed using thesescales plus additional demographic items including employment status, full- or part-timestatus, gender, position, years taught, education qualification and actual class size taught.
The survey was administered to staff in management schools in two universities – one inAustralia and one in New Zealand. The survey was sent out to 374 staff, and 166 useable
responses were returned, giving a response rate of 44 per cent. Characteristics of the sample
were as follows: average years of teaching experience (12.6), senior academics (defined as
senior lecturer and above) (52%); continuing appointments (83%); educational qualifications(26%); males (66%). Given that few studies have examined these constructs, we chose to use
exploratory factor analysis to delineate the underlying factor structure of the dependent andthe independent variables. For the dependent variables – teacher-centred approach andstudent-centred approach – we used principal axis factoring with an oblique rotation (notshown). As anticipated, the factor analysis revealed a two factor structure: ‘teacher-centred’
and ‘student-centred’. The means, variances, Chronbach’s alpha and factor intercorrelations
for the main factors are shown in Table 1.

Table 1: Means, Variances, Chronbach’s Alpha and Factor Intercorrelations for Main
Factors
Factor

M

Var

Alpha

1

2

3

4

5

6

1. Teacher
centred
2. Student
centred3. Teaching
Encounter
4. TimePressure
5. Department
Support
6. Control

2.6

1.4

0.6

1

-0.24

0.49

0.04

-0.07

-0.27

3.5

1.3

0.71

1

-0.14

0.08

0.13

0.09

2.6

1.5

0.76

1

0.31

-0.18

-0.30

3.2

1.4

0.75

1

-0.29

-0.15

3.4

1.7

0.69

1

0.26

4.3

1.0

0.77

1

For the independent variables, we used principal axis factoring with oblique rotation as we
expected the constructs to be correlated. We commenced the factor analysis using 33 items.
The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy was 0.75, indicating that the items
were factorable. We checked the sampling adequacy of the individual variables. The analysis

92

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations (2007), 32(2)included some 166 cases although the n was reduced to 165 due to missing values. We
eliminated items that loaded at below 0.39.
We anticipated a five factor solution but the scree plot suggested a four factor solution. As
can be seen in the factor loading table (Table 2), the items relating to ‘class size’ and ‘diverse
student characteristics’ loaded into the same factor. We interpreted this factor structure to
imply that teachers perceived the teaching encounter, in terms of student characteristics andclass size, as a single phenomenon. We have combined the items from the student
characteristics and the class size scales into a single construct labelled ‘demanding teachingencounter’.
The four factors accounted for some 48 per cent of the total variance and 37 per cent of thecommon variance. The mean, standard deviation and Chronbach’s alpha for each factor andfactor intercorrelations for each factor are presented in Table 2. The final items used in thefour derived factors are shown in the factor loading table (Table 2).
Table 2: Factor Loadings
FactorItemTime pressure
It is difficult to devote sufficient time to teaching
because of increasing pressure from administrative
duties.
Increasing pressure from research makes it difficult
to devote sufficient time for teaching.
Increasing workload makes it difficult for me tomaintain my enthusiasm for teaching this course.
Control
Teaching this course would be more rewarding if I
had greater say in the contents of the syllabus. #The school allows me considerable flexibility in theway I teach in this course.
I have had little say in the way this course is run. #I feel a lack of control over what and how I teach inthis course.#
Department view
Teaching is a low priority in my school. #My school’s dedication to improved teaching
makes it easier for me to plan and conduct thiscourse.
This school provides a good environment for the
discussion of teaching with colleagues.
Research is a greater priority than teaching in thisschool. #This school’s view of teaching makes it lessrewarding to focus much attention on teaching.#
Class size

Demanding
Teaching
Encounter

Dept
SupportControlTimepressure

1

2

3

4

-0.070-0.011-0.060

0.631

0.093

-0.007

0.037

0.655

0.119

-0.098-0.0450.608-0.155-0.052

0.624

0.080

-0.038

0.179

0.454

-0.0620.106-0.123-0.045-0.021

0.838
0.736

-0.036-0.084

0.008
0.020

0.732
0.663

-0.0080.064

0.079-0.031

0.168

0.445

0.164

-0.131-0.1040.422-0.138-0.105-0.165

0.684

0.113

-0.061

93

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations (2007), 32(2)In large classes students are often disruptive.
Once classes in the course get too large, I just try to
get the students to take a good set of notes.
In large classes I try to avoid questions.
Large classes discourage contact between thestudents and myself.
Student characteristics
The students act as though I am a teacher at school,rather than someone who will assist their adultlearning process.
In this course I have had to rethink the way that I
teach because of increasing numbers of lower
standard students.
Poor English skills amongst my students
discourage me from supporting discussion sessions
in this course.
Having a range of students’ talent in a lecture
makes it difficult for me to direct my teaching.
appropriately
Students in this course are often intolerant ofanything outside the syllabus.
Students have such variable skills that I find it hardto predict what they know and what they don’t.
Note:

0.396
0.406

-0.085-0.125-0.036-0.019

0.022
0.017

0.442
0.553

-0.0680.044-0.1300.129-0.143
0.182

0.485

-0.136-0.076

0.000

0.531

0.129

-0.004

0.056

0.484

-0.2040.010-0.056

0.528

0.112

-0.063

0.026

0.392

-0.008-0.066

0.154

0.504

0.213

0.005

0.027

# Reverse coded

Results
To test the relationship between the contextual and demographic variables and the approaches
to teaching we constructed the following equation:
TEACHING APPROACH = b0 + CONTROL + DEPT SUPPORT + DEMANDINGTEACHING ENCOUNTER + TIME PRESSURE + GENDER + POSITION +STATUS + PART-TIME + YEARS TAUGHT + EDUCATIONALQUALIFICATION + LOG ACTUAL CLASS SIZE + e.
We ran this equation separately for both the student-focused and the teacher-focused
approaches. The results for the regression analysis of the variables associated with teachingapproaches are shown in Tables 3 and 4. Table 3 contains the results for the student-focused
regression. The model explains some six per cent of the variation in teaching approach. The
regression results indicate that student-centred approach was negatively related to class size
indicating that, as class sizes get bigger, academic staff are less able to adopt a student-centred
approach.

94

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations (2007), 32(2)Table 3: Regression Analysis Results of the Effects of Contextual and Demographic
Variables on Student-centred Approach
Unstandardised
Std.
Sig.
(Constant)Time Pressure
Control of Teaching
Demanding Teaching Encounter
Departmental Support for Teaching
Years Taught
Position (senior = 0, junior =1)
Gender (male =0, female =1)
Status (continuing= 0, fixed term and contract =1)
Education Qualification (no = 0, yes =1)
Log of class size
Adjusted R2 = 0.06; N = 155

Coefficients B

Error

3.758
0.097
0.033
-0.1140.115-0.0030.061-0.145-0.2640.181-0.141

6.148
1.740
0.415
-1.3721.714-0.4760.458-1.241-1.6171.492-2.535

0.000
0.084
0.678
0.172
0.089
0.635
0.647
0.217
0.108
0.138
0.012

Table 4 contains the results for the teacher-focused regression. The model explains some 33
per cent of the variation in teaching approach. The regression results indicate that academic
staff who perceive that they lacked control of their teaching, are entering a demanding
teaching encounter and are dealing with large class sizes are more likely to adopt a lesseffective teacher centred approach. Actual class size (log thereof) was the only variable thatwas significant in both equations, indicating that student numbers in class are the critical
determinant of the quality of teaching.

Table 4: Regression Analysis Results of the Effects of Contextual and Demographic
Variables on Teacher-centred Approach(Constant)Time Pressure
Control of Teaching
Demanding Teaching Encounter
Departmental Support for Teaching
Years Taught
Position (senior = 0, junior =1)
Gender (male =0, female =1)
Status (continuing= 0, fixed term and contract =1)
Education Qualification (no = 0, yes =1)
Log of class size
Adjusted R2 = 0.33; N = 155

Unstandardised
Coefficients B

Std. Error

Sig.

1.505
-0.063-0.1410.474
0.057-0.007-0.117-0.175
0.092
0.035
0.156

2.747
-1.258-2.0006.368
0.952-1.060-0.978-1.679
0.633
0.319
3.144

0.007
0.210
0.047
0.000
0.343
0.291
0.330
0.095
0.528
0.750
0.002

95

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations (2007), 32(2)Conclusion
There is a well-established literature on the relationship between students’ perceptions of theirenvironment and their approach to learning. However, exploration of the relationship between
teaching approaches and perceptions of the environment is relatively new. Educational
research indicates that student-centred teaching rather than teacher-centred teaching produces
superior educational outcomes in terms of student learning, and that perceptions of the work
context affect academics’ approach to teaching. In a context where there seems little prospectof more adequate public funding, academic staff are left with diminished control over theirteaching environment.
Without over-burdening the data presented in this paper, we can reasonably conclude that‘quality’, understood as attaining ‘deeper’ learning outcomes, is unlikely to be maintained in
the face of much larger class numbers than in previous decades. Therefore, we would disagreewith claims that teaching staff can (or should be expected to) simultaneously manage larger
classes and pursue effective student-centred learning. Greater scepticism towards the origins
and intent of some higher education literature may be appropriate in this regard: ‘more withless’ may be a less than optimal maxim for the achievement of quality in university teaching
and learning. While there remains considerable rhetoric about quality in higher education (inboth teaching and research) and an increasing student focus, these findings indicate that whilelarger class sizes are one consequence of these developments, another consequence is adeterioration in teaching effectiveness.
Over recent years, student expectations have risen with respect to the resources provided tothem (such as extensive notes and course websites). The increasing provision of standardisedmaterials contradicts the pursuit of more active learning, since it encourages passivity and thereliance on generic knowledge, rather than autonomous learning. More student-centred
learning in the current context may be attainable only through academic staff reducing theirown contributions and encouraging students to become less dependent on them, while also
investigating less work-intensive methods of teaching and evaluation – for example,
minimising levels of assessment and teaching contact.
The intersections between the reorganisation of academic work and the quality of teaching
and learning ultimately concern the politics of resource allocation within higher education
systems presently driven by market and managerial imperatives. In both Australia and New
Zealand, though, the greater integration of teaching and learning objectives within collective
bargaining (already present, to varying degrees) could permit their linking to the provision of
sufficient resources and the prevention of unsustainable student:staff ratios. Collective
bargaining processes can allow strategies for teaching and learning quality to be integrated
with workload allocation and the management of student numbers, through negotiation rather
than managerial fiat.

96

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations (2007), 32(2)References
Biggs, J. (2001) Teaching for quality learning at university: what the student does. Society
for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press, Buckingham.
Burgess, J. and Connell, J. (2006) Developments in the call centre industry: an overview. In
J. Burgess and J. Connell eds Developments in the Call Centre Industry. Routledge, London:
118.
Clark, T. (2004) Under no circumstances resolve the problem: higher education policy
overview in Australia. Australian Universities Review 45 (2)12-15.
Curtis, B. (2005) Flexibility or insecurity? Women’s experiences of fixed-term research-only
positions in the academy. In S. R. Blumenfeld and G. Lafferty (eds.) Labour, Employment
and Work in New Zealand, Proceedings of the 11th Conference, Wellington: Industrial
Relations Centre: 111-115.
Department of Education, Science and Training (2007) Higher Education Workplace
Relations Requirements (HEWRRs) under the Commonwealth Grants Scheme (CGS). DEST,
Canberra.
Goodyear, P. and Hativa, N. (2002) Introduction. In N. Hativa and P. Goodyear (eds.)
Teacher Thinking, Beliefs and Knowledge in Higher Education. Kulwer Education Press,
Dordrecht.
Gow, L. and Kember, D. (1993) Conceptions of teaching and their relationship to student
learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology. 63: 20-33.
Halsey, A. (1992) Decline of the Donnish Dominion. The British Academic Professions in the
Twentieth Century. Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Junor, A. (2004) Casual university work: choice, risk, Inequality and the case for regulation.
Economic and Labour Relations Review 14(2): 276-304.
Kember, D. and Gow, L. (1994) Orientations to teaching and their effects on the quality ofstudent learning. Journal of Higher Education (65)1: 58-75.
Kniest, P. (2006), Are the government’s reforms to higher education starting to bite? NTEU
Advocate, March: 24-25.
Knight, P. and Trowler, P. (2000) Department-level cultures and the improvement of learningand teaching. Studies in Higher Education, 25 (1): 69-82.
Lafferty, G. and Fleming, J. (2000) The restructuring of academic work in Australia: power,
management and gender. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 21 (2): 257-267.
Light, G. and Cox, R. (2001) Learning and Teaching in Higher Education: The Reflective
Professional. Paul Chapman Publishing, London.

97

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations (2007), 32(2)Lowe, I. (1987) University Research Funding: The wheel still is spinnin’. Australian
Universities Review 30(1): 2-12.
Marginson, S. (1991) Academic salaries: will award restructuring make a difference? Journalof Tertiary Educational Administration 13(1): 19-44.
Marginson, S. (1992) Can performance management work in Australian universities? Higher
Education 24(1): 41-56.
Marginson, S. (2004) National and global competition in higher education. Campus Review.
December, 9-10.
Martens, E. and Prosser, M. (1998) What constitutes high quality teaching and learning andhow to assure it. Quality Assurance in Education 6 (1): 28-36.
Neumann, R. and Lindsay, A. (1988) Research policy and the changing nature of Australia’s
universities. Higher Education 17(3): 307-321.
Office of the Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education) (2002) Tertiary Education
Strategy 2002-2007, Ministry of Education, Wellington.
Park, S. (1996) Research, teaching and service. Journal of Higher Education 67(1): 46-84.
Prosser, M. and Trigwell, K. (1997) Perceptions of the teaching environment and its
relationship to approaches to teaching. British Journal of Educational Psychology 67: 25-54.
Prosser, M. and Trigwell, K. (2001) Understanding Learning and Teaching: The Experienceof Higher Education. The Society for Research into Higher Education, Buckingham.
Prosser, M., Trigwell, K. and Taylor, P. (1994) A phenomenographic study of academic
conceptions of science learning and teaching. Learning and Instruction 4: 217-231.
Ritzer, G. (1993) The McDonaldization of Society: An Investigation into the Changing
Character of Contemporary Social Life. Pine Forge Press, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Sappey, J. (2006) The Intersection of product markets and labour markets in Australian higher
education: student customers as actors in industrial relations. New Actors in Australian and
New Zealand Industrial Relations Conference. University of Sydney, November.
Trigwell, K. and Prosser, M. (1996a) Congruence between intention and strategy in scienceteachers’ approach to teaching. Higher Education 32: 77-87.
Trigwell, K. and Prosser, M. (1996b) Changing approaches to teaching: a relational
perspective. Studies in Higher Education 21: 275-84.
Trigwell, K., Martin, E., Benjamin, J. and Prosser, M. (2000) Scholarship of teaching: amodel. Higher Education Research and Development 19(2): 155-168.
Trigwell, K., Prosser, M. and Taylor, P. (1994) Qualitative difference in approaches toteaching first tear university science. Higher Education 27: 75-84.

98

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations (2007), 32(2)Trigwell, K., Prosser, M. and Waterhouse, F. (1999) Relations between teachers’ approaches
to teaching and students’ approaches to learning. Higher Education (37): 57-70.
Ward, I. (2003) Bonanza adds up to bad economics. Australian Financial Review,
5 November.
Webb, G. (2004) Deconstructing Deep and Surface: Towards a Critique of
Phenomenography. Higher Education 33: 195-212.

99

Chronicle
February 2007
The working year started with the continuation of a number of unresolved
employment relations issues from 2006.
The Air New Zealand plan to outsource engineering services to the Spanish owned
company Swissport continued to receive extensive media coverage (see October 2006
Chronicle). The Press reported that staff at the Christchurch branch had voted on a
package negotiated between the airline and the Engineering, Printing andManufacturing Union (EPMU). EPMU’s National Secretary Andrew Little wasquoted as saying that the “[the package] is a combination of what the airline has put
to us that we think we can work with and what we've put up to [Air New Zealand].”To further complicate matters, the Services and Food Workers’ Union (SFWU) representing nearly 250 of the workers affected by the outsourcing proposal – hadrefused to participate in any further negotiations. The Dominion Post reported thatthe two unions - EPMU and SFWU - were “deeply divided” over how to counter theairline’s plan to outsource the jobs. Northern Regional Secretary for the SFWU Jill
Ovens claimed that the EPMU had reneged on a pact made in October 2006 to stick
together through negotiations. Andrew Little of the EPMU rejected the suggestion
saying that “[w]e have both made our respective decisions about how we wish to
approach this…[w]e are prepared to continue talks as long and as hard as we have to
see if we can resolve it by agreement.”
Issues relating to alleged breaches of good faith featured prominently in the media.
The Press reported that the Christchurch City Council had successfully appealed an
Employment Court ruling that the Council had breached good faith by contacting
employees during the last agreement negotiations (see April 2005 Chronicle). The
case related to the situation where the Council’s former Chief Executive Lesley
McTurk had written to union employees during pay talks because the Council thought
it had been misrepresented by the union (the Southern Local Government Officers’
Union). The union objected and a subsequent Employment Court hearing found
McTurk’s communications had breached the Employment Relations Act. The
Employment Court had ruled that employers could not contact employees duringbargaining without the union’s consent. However, the Court of Appeal found that
employers could communicate with workers during contract negotiations as long as
they did not try to negotiate or undermine the bargaining or the union’s authority.
In a footnote to the Court of Appeal ruling, the Press also reported that theChristchurch City Council had finally settled their collective negotiations with theSouthern Local Government Officers’ Union. The new collective agreement coveredaround 1,000 members of the union, was for a three-year term and included a
combination of one-off payments and salary increases of between 2% and 18% over
the three-year term.
In another case concerning breach of good faith, a series of articles in the Southland
Times covered the case of a leading Invercargill heating company that allegedly
encouraged workers to leave their union. In a hearing before the Employment

Relations Authority, the Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union (EPMU)
claimed that Yunca Heating Ltd had acted in bad faith by trying to induce workers toleave the union and by denying a union organiser reasonable access to discusscollective bargaining with workers. There was conflicting evidence from workers on
whether there had been any pressure from management to leave the union. The
manager of Yunca Heating said that he felt that he had been “kicked in the guts” after
he was handed 17 forms from workers wanting to join the union. He denied that hehad wanted workers to rescind their union membership. He had called a meeting todiscuss the matter in order to provide a balance to what the workers had been told as
he felt they had been intimidated and railroaded into joining the union.
The National Business Review reported that figures from Statistics New Zealandshowed that while the number of strikes were down in 2006 their economic impact
was greater. There were a total of 49 work stoppages for the year ended September
2006, which involved 12,508 employees. Losses included $4.7 million in wages andsalaries and 26,198 days of work. In the previous year to September 2005, there were
52 stoppages involving 13,255 employees with losses of 24,731 days of work and $4
million in wages. Dispute over wage rises were behind 36 of the stoppages.
A woman made redundant by the Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union(EPMU) lost a claim that the EPMU had breached the redundancy provisions of her
employment agreement. The Dominion Post reported that the woman claimed thatthe union had failed to offer her two positions that became available within 12 monthsof her redundancy in June 2005 (as required under her collective employment
agreement). The Employment Relations Authority determined that the two positions
were substantially different from her previous job and thus, rejected her personal
grievance claim.
Australia’s unemployment fell to its lowest point in three decades. The rate had
dropped to 4.5% in January 2007, from 5.3% in the previous year, and almost 300,000
jobs were created in the 12 months to the end of January 2007.
During February, a series of newspaper articles highlighted the search by employersof better ways to attract and retain staff. The National Business Review reported on“innovative ways” Australian employers were using to seek new talent. A careerbuilding and networking site claimed that employer-paid study and training courses
were becoming common bait in recruitment in Australia. However, it was claimed
that some head-hunters were taking ‘inducements’ too far by offering trips to Las
Vegas and other exotic locations as a part of their employment packages. One CEOof a job networking website was quoted as saying that “Australian employers aredesperate for talent and are turning to extreme tactics to catch the interest of the best
workers in the country.”
Recruitment consultants claimed in another National Business Review article that
New Zealand’s recruitment market was expected to remain buoyant for the rest of
2007 with the first quarter leading the growth in a number of key sectors of theeconomy. One industry insider suggested that companies needed to establish a
strategy on how to interact with potential employees throughout the recruitment
process saying that “[i]f an employee has two or more offers, their impression of apotential employer based on the way the company has conducted itself through the[employment] process may well be a deciding factor in which job an employee takes.”
Another sign of a ‘tight labour market’ could be found in a survey of 1,911 employers
by the recruitment firm Hudson. Unsurprisingly, the survey recorded that staff
retention and development would be the highest priorities for many companies in2007. In the discussion of the survey results in the Dominion Post, it was suggested
that job sharing was one effective solution to the issue of staff retention, but that onlya small number of companies had adopted this approach. A recruitment company
manager said that “[a] well thought out job-sharing programme automaticallyincreases the number of potential suitable employees for a role.”
In a tight labour market employers should be extra vigilant if they wanted to avoid thepost-Christmas holiday exodus, according to a Dominion Post article. It listed a seriesof simple strategies to help increase the sense of feeling at home at work, including:praise and recognition, personal development, promotion of fun, encouragement ofquality relationships and career breaks, nip problems early and recruit for retention.
Increasing levels of workplace technology were placing more pressure on those with
sub-standard literacy. The Dominion Post featured an article on levels of literacy
among the workforce which reported that the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions,
Business New Zealand and the Tertiary Education Commission (TEC) were looking
at ways to address literacy in the workplace in ways that were effective andaffordable. The Commission was funding 20 providers to offer workplace literacy
programmes.

March 2007
The Dominion Post discussed the increase in annual holidays to a minimum of fourweeks of paid leave per annum from April 1 2007. The Council of Trade Unions
estimated that 92% of unionised workers covered by collective agreements alreadyreceived four weeks paid holidays although this depended on length of service.
Additionally, it was estimated that more than 50% of all public servants alreadyreceived four weeks leave, as did more than 80% of managers.
The dispute between the firefighters union and the Fire Service over public holidays
and the interpretation of the Holidays was heading for the Supreme Court. The Courtof Appeal had upheld an appeal from the Fire Service over an Employment Court
decision (see July 2006 Chronicle) and the Professional Firefighters Union had sought
leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. The case was expected to set a precedent for
how other 24-hour services would meet the requirement to give staff a day off if they
worked a public holiday.
In a further development in the Air New Zealand outsourcing proposal, the Dominion
Post reported that Air New Zealand and the Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing
Union (EPMU) had reached a deal over the proposed outsourcing. Nevertheless,
EPMU’s National Secretary Andrew Little called some elements of the deal
unpalatable and said that its members had been forced to “swallow a dead rat”. The
Services and Food Workers’ Union (SFWU), which was not party to the agreement,

“rubbished the deal”. An Air New Zealand spokesman was quoted as saying that thesavings target depended on both unions agreeing to the settlement, but accepted that
only the EPMU was prepared to join at this stage of the negotiations. A later article
claimed that the talks had reached a critical stage when Air New Zealand negotiators
refused to give an assurance that the jobs would not be outsourced despite a deal
being struck.
Things began to look bleak when media reports suggested that agreement with airport
workers looked “dead in the water” as Air New Zealand maintained that theagreement had to be ratified by both the EPMU and the SFWU. The SFWU’s
Northern Regional Secretary Jill Ovens confirmed that delegates from the different
departments covered by the collective agreement, including check-in and loading
staff, finance and cargo workers, had voted to reject the deal. She was quoted assaying “[w]hy should the Service and Food Workers Union take some other union’s
deal to our members when we have a separate collective agreement of our own, andwe didn't make that deal”.
Later in the month, the Dominion Post reported a claim by the SFWU that Air New
Zealand had offered ‘a $3000 carrot’ to airport workers prepared to switch unions ortake an individual agreement. Airport worker members, who wanted to get the oneoff payment available to members of the EPMU, would have to join the EPMU oragree to an individual contract on lesser conditions. The rhetoric between the twounions continued with Jill Ovens, Northern Secretary for the SFWU, claiming that her
union had scored a victory over the airline by keeping the collective together, and that
the EPMU deal did not offer any benefits, only cuts to terms and conditions.
Once again negotiations in the health sector featured prominently. The Press reported
that public hospital nurses were seeking subsidised superannuation in their firstcontract negotiations since 2004 (when they won a 20% pay increase). The New
Zealand Nurses’ Organisation (NZNO) said that its 20,000 public hospital members
were not eligible for subsidised superannuation unlike the police, teachers anddoctors. NZNO’s Industrial Adviser Glenda Alexander said it was unfair that nurses
were treated differently to other public servants. Still, both parties had agreed to a
non-conflict approach to bargaining.
Meanwhile, health sector cleaners, orderlies and food workers threatened strike actionin their quest for a national collective agreement. The Press reported that most of the
2,800 members of the SFWU had voted in favour of taking industrial action if theirbid for a multi-employer collective contract (to replace 40 separate agreements) was
refused. The union had negotiated with District Health Boards (DHBs) since August
2006 over a multi-employer collective agreement and substantial pay rises. The article
pointed out that private contractors employed about three-quarters of the staff
concerned and that DHBs had stated they did not want contractors to be parties to anational collective contract. In a further development, the Dominion Post reported
that the SFWU’s “struggle to gain a multi-employer collective agreement” went to the
Employment Court. The lawyer acting for some of the private contractors described
employers and the union as “being on the same page”, although it was the form of thecollective agreement which remained “a sticking point”.

An article in both the Press and the Dominion Post reviewed the impact of industrial
strife in the health sector. A year of unprecedented industrial action had cost healthboards at least $5 million and disrupted about 14,000 patients. The most expensive
strike was the junior doctors’ walkout for five days in June 2006 with DHBs spending
about $4m on extra payments to senior doctors who worked during the strike. Health
union advocate Deborah Powell was quoted as saying that $5m was a “grossunderestimate” and DHBs were embarrassed to admit the true cost, particularly what
had been spent on public relations during the strikes.
The NZ Herald publisher, APN News & Media, faced a fight with its workers overplans to outsource sub-editing and design jobs. APN was considering outsourcing anunspecified number of jobs to PageMasters, a unit of Australian Associated Press. An
APN spokesperson said it would be a couple of weeks before it was clear how manyjobs might be affected. The Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union (EPMU)
claimed that more than 70 jobs would be lost, that the quality of APN’s news would
suffer and that the union planned to fight the proposal.
Medical laboratory workers announced that they would strike for a second time in lessthan five months. The Medical Laboratory Workers Union gave notice that theworkers will strike for 48 hours from April 11. The union’s National President
Stewart Smith was quoted as saying that “[w]e are now into the 13th month ofnegotiations, with no reported improvement to the employers’ intransigent position …
[w]e have diminishing confidence in their ability to negotiate this contract”.
The Press reported that national stopwork meetings by senior doctors were“increasingly inevitable”. This followed two failed attempts at mediation with
DHB’s. A third mediation date was set for April 23.
Seasonal workers at Heinz Wattie’s food-processing plant in Hastings went on strikefor 24 hours after they failed to secure a collective agreement. Union officials said
that they had received assurances from Allied Workforce, the company providing theworkers on contract to Heinz Wattie’s, that it was prepared to resume talks.
In a series of articles, the Dominion Post reported on Queen Margaret College, aWellington private girls’ school, and its “bitter public dispute” with a former teacher .
The former teacher – Dr Stuart Selwood - suffered from terminal cancer and wasseeking $74,000 compensation for allegedly being forced from his job. Dr Selwood,
who left the school in July 2006, had taken his claims of constructive dismissal,
personal grievance and breach of contract to the Employment Relations Authority.
The case raised allegations of abuse, bullying, threats and moral hypocrisy at theChristian school. Dr Selwood accused the principal Carol Craymer of seeking toforce him out of his job, and of putting him under such stress that he failed to noticethe symptoms of his cancer till it was too late to treat. The school denied mistreating
Dr Selwood, saying his grievances were addressed and he had quit of his own
volition. The paper reported that the college was “pitted against itself” with teachers,
the school chaplain and a former pupil present in support of Dr Selwood while senior
management lined up on the other side of the table.
A survey featured in the Dominion Post suggested that companies struggling withhigh staff turnover could gain valuable insights by using exit interviews effectively.

However, it was problematic that some analyses of exit interviews found that
employees weren’t being honest in stating their reasons for leaving the company
because they didn’t want to “burn their bridges”.
The National Business Review featured claims about a “new breed of union
entrepreneurs turning to the market to boost the flagging movement’s membership”.
The article suggested that amid all the talk of partnerships and productivity the best
way for unions to promote themselves was still placard waving and strikes. The
article outlined union leader Matt McCarten’s proposal to use the government’s
KiwiSaver sweeteners to promote union membership to high school students, many ofwhom are not yet in the workforce. His Unite union was partnering a major corporate
to deliver a KiwiSaver fund tied to union membership, and thereby help young people
into their first homes.

April 2007
The Minister of Labour, Ruth Dyson announced that the statutory minimum hourly
wage was moving from $10.25 to $11.25, and for workers under 18 years it would beraised to $9 an hour. The NZ Herald pointed out that this was the biggest increasesince 1999 and that around 120,000 workers would benefit from the increase. In thenine years of a Labour led government, the statutory minimum wage had increased
from $7 an hour to $11.25 (a 61% increase). Interestingly, the article criticised theLabour Government for being too cautious when it came to employment legislation,
arguing that any significant reforms were the result of pressure from minor coalition
parties.
Industrial action continued throughout the health sector during April (see March
Chronicle). The Press reported on the impending strike by radiographers acrossseven District Health Boards (DHBs). An attempt of an 11th hour mediation failed toprevent a strike and then medical laboratory workers, including those at hospitallaboratories and the New Zealand Blood Service, went on strike for two days in a bid
for higher pay and protection of pay against contracting-out. A DHB spokesperson
said the union’s pay and conditions claims were "unrealistic and unaffordable". Latein April, matters seemed to escalate further when the Press reported that the union
representing striking hospital radiographers had threatened a nationwide walkout thatwould “grind the service to a complete halt”.
Senior doctors were considering stop work meetings as a start to industrial actions
after the Association of Salaried Medical Specialists’ Executive Director Ian Powellannounced that mediation between senior doctors and DHBs had stalled. Stop work
meetings in May, followed by strikes, were on the cards unless a decent offer, “not arehash,” came through. Subsequently, the Dominion Post reported that senior doctors
were threatening the nation’s first national strike as pay talks became “increasingly
acrimonious”. The threat came as the Pan Professional Medical Forum, which
included medical colleges and doctors’ unions, warned that the “very serious”
recruitment and retention problem was approaching crisis levels in some provincial
areas.

By the end of the month, the Dominion Post suggested that “crippling industrial
action in the health sector has reached epidemic proportions” with the number of days
lost to strikes last year more than six times higher than in 2000. In 2006, the numberof working days lost by hospital strikes was 11,562 compared with just 1,750 in 2000,
according to Statistics NZ figures. Radiation therapists, radiographers and lab
workers had all taken industrial action this year. A spokesperson for the DHBs
claimed that the current industrial relations legislation had created “a climate of
mistrust” by barring District Health Boards from communicating directly with
employees who also happened to be union members.
The Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union (EPMU) was considering legal
action against APN News & Media after the New Zealand Herald publisher confirmed
plans to push ahead with the outsourcing of about 70 sub-editing jobs (see March
Chronicle). EPMU’s National Secretary Andrew Little said the union, which
represented some of involved APN staff, was considering legal action to stop APN’s
outsourcing. The union believed APN had failed to consult properly.
In further developments at Air New Zealand (see March Chronicle), the Dominion
Post reported that airport workers had agreed to labour reforms to stop their jobs frombeing transferred to a Spanish company, but they would seek a parliamentary inquiry
into the airline’s ‘sharp practice’. Airport workers represented by the EPMU had
voted 78% in favour of the settlement which would result in 300 voluntary
redundancies and the introduction of more flexible shifts with reduced pay andconditions for some workers and gains for other workers. EPMU’s National
Secretary Andrew Little said the deal was the best in a bad situation and that workers
preferred to be employed directly by Air New Zealand, rather than having to deal witha third party. However, another 250 workers at the Auckland International terminal,
represented by the Services and Food Workers' Union (SFWU), had refused tonegotiate with Air New Zealand until the next scheduled bargaining round for theircollective agreement, due to start in May.
The Dominion Post revealed that another outsourcing proposal by Air New Zealand tooutsource financial services to “coup-torn” Fiji was “ditched”. The plan would havemeant that about 70 jobs were to have been disestablished. SFWU’s Northern
Regional Secretary Jill Ovens said that staff were relieved to hear their jobs were safe,
but angry at the stress they had been put through for more than a year.
In yet another case of threatened outsourcing the Dominion Post reported that the jobsof 150 Fonterra accounting staff in Hamilton were safe after the dairy giant had
decided against outsourcing the positions to Fiji. Fonterra said that a cost-cutting
review found no benefits in moving the financial processing and accounting
department overseas. A local Chamber of Commerce spokesperson said that he could
understand Fonterra wanting to save money “but to move that offshore or to a farflung part of New Zealand away from the core of the business would be a poor
decision”.
The Southland Times reported that the Invercargill firm Yunca Heating Ltd was fined$6,000 for acting in bad faith over attempts to induce workers to leave their union.
The Employment Relations authority found in a written decision that about a third of

all new EPMU members had resigned from the union because of various pressuresand influences from the company.
In the banking sector, Westpac staff were to vote on a new collective employment
agreement that would increase wages by up to 11.8%. Finsec spokesperson Andrew
Campbell said that the offer would bring wages for Westpac staff into line with staff
at ANZ National Bank. Westpac had also given a commitment to move away from acore pay system based on sales targets, including debt products, and instead reward
skills (see February 2006 Chronicle).
Another sector of the aviation industry was threatened with strike action as Air
Nelson was to be hit by strike action over pay. The airline - a subsidiary of Air New
Zealand - was issued with a 14-day notice of stoppages by the EPMU. Notice wasgiven for four three-day strikes. EPMU’s National Secretary Andrew Little said theunion had taken action because of Air Nelson’s refusal to offer a “decent pay rise”.
By the end of the month, however, union delegates and Air Nelson started a mediation
process in a bid to avoid industrial action.
The Corrections Service featured again in the media when the Sunday Star Times
reported that a group of Paremoremo prison officers were suing the Corrections
Department over the jail’s harsh behaviour management regime in the 1990s. Five of
the country’s most difficult prisoners sued Corrections in 2004, claiming they were
mistreated under the same regime. They were awarded a total of $140,000 plus costsof more than $350,000. Now four prison officers, three of whom still worked at theprison, claimed that they were exposed to significant hurt, embarrassment andphysical assaults while having to implement the policy.
In yet another employment dispute at the Department of Corrections, a prison officer
at the Rimutaka Prison, who received a payout for wrongful suspension 10 years ago,
was again fighting for his job. The officer was reinstated, but was suspended again
early in 2006 after the department accused him of assaulting an inmate. He was stillon leave in early 2007, pending a decision by the Employment Relations Authority (aweek after receiving a medal for 21 years of exemplary service). The officer claimed
that he had been singled out because he was a union member, and had stood up to
management in the past.
The Waikato Times suggested that an employment dispute between the former Chief
Exective of Parentline Maxine Hodgson and Parentline’s trust board was shaping up
to be the “best free show in town”. The Employment Relations Authority had“fruitlessly” invited the parties to consider mediation and a restorative solution rather
than taking a legalistic route. In a later article, a supporter of the CEO criticised the‘pusillanimity” (lack of courage) of the Parentline Board and called the chairmanshipof the Trust Board divisive, “a shambles”, “manipulative”, and “shameful”.
According to the Dominion Post, the union representing a brewery worker wanted topursue his unjustified dismissal claim even after he died distraught of being
dismissed. Steve Tipene died on April 4, eight days after being dismissed for a
mistake he made while mixing a batch of beer at Independent Liquor’s Papakura
plant. National Director of the Unite union Mike Treen claimed that the dismissal
was a “contributory factor” in Mr Tipene taking his own life. The union filed achallenge to Mr Tipene’s dismissal with the Employment Relations Authority shortly
before learning of his death. Under the Employment Relations Act, a case filed onbehalf of a person who has later died can continue to be pursued.

May 2007
The public debate surrounding the Green MP Sue Kedgley’s Employment Relations(Flexible Working Hours) Amendment Bill re-surfaced in the media (see November
2006 Chronicle). In the Southland Times, Angela McLeod from the New ZealandFederation of Business and Professional Women (BPW) said that all workers shouldhave the statutory right to request part-time work and flexible hours. However, shecautioned that employees and employers needed the backing of law to ensure that “thesystem was not flouted by either party”.
Both the Press and the Dominion Post reported that secondary teachers were
demanding a $300 million pay increase which could end up costing taxpayers about
three-quarters of a billion dollars through parity deals with other teachers. The Post
Primary Teachers Association (representing about 18,000 teachers) presented its
three-year collective agreement claim to the Ministry of Education. It claimed that
there was a global teacher shortage and New Zealand risked losing its best andbrightest overseas there was more investment in its teaching workforce.
Unrest in the health sector attracted again headlines (see April Chronicle). Seniordoctors were organising “unprecedented” stop work meetings after their negotiations
with District Health Boards failed. The Chief Executive of the Association of
Salaried Medical Specialists Ian Powell claimed that the doctor’s union had tried toaddress “serious” recruitment and retention risks noting that senior doctors were “…
under serious threat from Australia, which has significantly increased salaries forsenior doctors due to its own shortages”.
The escalation of strike action by laboratory workers was widely reported. After thesuspension of seven striking lab workers the media noted that more strike actions
were likely “as the bitter dispute with district health boards show[ed] no sign ofending”. District Health Boards’ spokesperson Gordon Davies said the two healthboards involved in the suspensions had no option but to suspend workers.
The pressure for better employment conditions for health sector cleaners, orderlies
and food workers continued (see March Chronicle). The Timaru Herald announced
that “some of the lowest paid workers in the health system are expected to announce
further strike action … in an effort to get what they term a living wage”. Service andFood Workers’ Union (SFWU) spokesperson John Miller revealed that members had
voted on whether further strike action was necessary. He said that “[t]he only pay risethese workers get is when there is a rise in the minimum wage but next year they will
be paid less than the average wage…[t]heir top offer is our starting point”. Later inthe month, the union announced 4,160 separate strike actions on behalf of 2,800
members at public hospitals. Members were to stop work for 55 minutes in rolling
strike action from May 31.

The saga at Air Nelson continued (see April Chronicle) with a report in the Press thatthe threat of a strike at Air Nelson had been withdrawn after the Employment Court
announced it would side with the airline’s injunction against the industrial action.
The threat of strike action re-emerged later in the month following a breakdown in thenegotiations between the airline and the union. After talks between the airline and the
EPMU had failed, the Waikato Times reported on a picket near Nelson Airport’s
entrance, marking the first day of six weeks of strike action. In an article in the
Nelson Mail, the airline rejected suggestions that it had used illegal labour to keep its
operation running as the EPMU investigated whether some workers loading freight on
to Air Nelson aircraft were legally entitled to work for the company. Subsequently,
the EPMU filed for an interim injunction to stop the airline from using allegedly
illegal strikebreaking labour.
Meanwhile the Press reported that students at the Christchurch Polytechnic Instituteof Technology faced major disruption when more than 200 academics went on strike.
A field officer from the Association of Staff in Tertiary Education (ASTE) said thatthe attitude of those he had been negotiating with was “appalling”, as was the offer
they had put on the table for union members.
The unrest at the Corrections Department continued (see April Chronicle) with media
predictions that prisons would struggle to admit new inmates during industrial action
by frontline managers in June. Public Service Association’s Organiser Alan Wareannounced that about 70 prison unit managers would begin taking action from June 7.
It was claimed that the Corrections Department had reduced their salary by $4,500 ayear through cuts in their muster allowances last year. The allowance had been given
for bulging prison numbers. Mr Ware claimed that “[t]o add insult to injury, thedepartment has increased the pay of prison officers, who the unit managers supervise,by up to $7000 a year”.
A prison officer, who had already received a payout for wrongful suspension 10 years
ago, received a second payout for wrongful dismissal and reinstatement to his old job.
The prison officer was suspended in March 2006 (see March 2007 Chronicle) after he
was accused of assaulting an inmate. But the Employment Relations Authority foundthat there was not enough evidence to support the claims, and ordered the Corrections
Department to reinstate him, pay him for lost wages and a further $5,000
compensation.
Several newspapers featured the unusual case of a highly respected clinician that had
emailed photographs of his genitals. The doctor, who had name suppression, wasdismissed by Auckland District Health Board in early 2005 after details of thephotographs came to light. However, the Employment Court had subsequently
ordered the doctor to be reinstated but had not granted permanent name suppression
or compensation. The doctor appealed, therefore, for name suppression to be granted
and compensation paid, while the Health Board cross-appealed for its dismissal of thedoctor to be upheld and for his identity to be made public.
Coverage of the case involving Queen Margaret College continued in the Dominion
Post (see March Chronicle). The school was accused by the former teacher of taking“retribution” against his supporters in a way he feared was designed to affect theoutcome of his case. The school strenuously denied punishing witnesses, but its bid

to have all the supplementary evidence permanently suppressed as prejudicial was
unsuccessful.
Another impact of full employment was the increase in employees challenging
agreements stopping them from working for a competitor or setting up in business forthemselves, according to Bell Gully employment lawyer Andrew Scott-Howman. He
claimed in the National Business Review that there was growing uncertainty about theability of an employer to enforce a restraint clause and that “[u]nder New Zealandlaw, restraints are on their face illegal, but due to a number of historical factors, thecourts will enforce them to the extent that they are reasonable”.
In a rather extreme example of a vendetta against the boss, the Dominion Post
reported that a Bowen Hospital staff member had appeared in court, accused ofthreatening to kill her boss in a hate-mail campaign and putting dog faeces in her
letterbox. The employee (who was on unpaid leave from the hospital) appeared in the
Wellington District Court charged with threatening to kill and criminal harassment,
after a manager at the private hospital in Crofton Downs received about 30 offensive
and abusive letters over 10 months. Along with the letters, the manager claimed she
received cartoons depicting how she was going to die, and pictures of actresses with
their eyes and mouths cut out.

Colin Ross & Erling Rasmussen
Auckland University of Technology