This article was downloaded by: [University of Tasmania]On: 27 November 2014, At: 22:37Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK
Higher Education Research &DevelopmentPublication details, including instructions for authorsand subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cher20
The Academic WorkEnvironment in AustralianUniversities: A motivating placeto work?Richard Winter a & James Sarros ba Monash University Gippslandb Monash UniversityPublished online: 14 Jul 2010.
To cite this article: Richard Winter & James Sarros (2002) The Academic WorkEnvironment in Australian Universities: A motivating place to work?, Higher EducationResearch & Development, 21:3, 241-258, DOI: 10.1080/0729436022000020751
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0729436022000020751
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, orsuitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressedin this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not theviews of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content shouldnot be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions,claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilitieswhatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connectionwith, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly
forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
asm
ania
] at
22:
37 2
7 N
ovem
ber
2014
Higher Education Research & Development, Vol. 21, No. 3, 2002
The Academic Work Environment inAustralian Universities: A motivating placeto work?DR RICHARD WINTERMonash University Gippsland
DR JAMES SARROSMonash University
ABSTRACT This paper identi� es positive (motivating) and negative (demotivating)sources of academic work motivation in Australian universities. In 1998, the AcademicWork Environment Survey (Winter, Taylor, & Sarros, 2000) was administered to astrati� ed sample (� ve positions, � ve disciplines) of 2,609 academics in four types ofuniversity (research, metropolitan, regional, university of technology). A total of 1,041usable surveys were returned (response rate of 40 per cent). Across the sample, academicsreported moderate levels of work motivation. Work motivation was found to be relativelystrong at professorial levels but weak at lecturer levels. Quantitative and qualitative� ndings indicated the work environment in academe is motivating when roles are clear, jobtasks are challenging, and supervisors exhibit a supportive leadership style. The workenvironment is demotivating where there is role overload, low job feedback, low partici-pation, and poor recognition and rewards practices. The paper concludes by discussing theimplications of study � ndings for university leadership.
Introduction
During the period 1993 to 1998, senior university managers in Australia adoptedcorporate management principles and practices in response to government policiespromoting the commercialisation of higher education and � nancial self-reliance forinstitutions (Clarke, 1998; Debats & Ward, 1998; Gallagher, 2000; Marginson &Considine, 2000; Winter et al., 2000). At the structural level, executive decisionmaking supplemented existing hierarchies in universities or supplanted collegialforms of governance (Marginson & Considine, 2000, p. 4). At the cultural level,universities aggressively engaged in entrepreneurial activities, particularly in the areaof faculty consulting (Slaughter & Leslie, 1997, p. 20) and the marketing ofinternational education (Pratt & Poole, 1999/2000, p. 19). At the same time,corporate forms of work organisation were introduced under the guise of qualityassurance mechanisms, performance appraisal and � nancial reporting systems (Tay-
ISSN 0729-4360 print; ISSN 1469-8360 online/02/030241-16 Ó 2002 HERDSADOI: 10.1080/0729436022000020751
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
asm
ania
] at
22:
37 2
7 N
ovem
ber
2014
242 R. Winter & J. Sarros
lor et al., 1998; Winter & Sarros, 2001). As workloads intensi� ed (McInnis, 2000)and pressures to raise university revenues increased, academics reported a lack ofconsultation (Martin, 1999, pp. 15–22; Winter et al., 2000, pp. 292–293), majordeclines in job satisfaction (McInnis, 2000, p.xiii) and high levels of personal stressat work (Gillespie et al., 2001, pp. 62–65).
To improve academic morale and motivation in universities, researchers arguedattention must be paid to improving the perceived environment (or climate) inwhich academics work (see Lacy & Sheehan, 1997, p. 321; Ramsden, 1998a,pp. 361–362). According to Ramsden (1998a, p. 361), changing the perceivedenvironment of Australian universities (i.e. poor morale and declining commitment)is “likely to produce disproportionately large results” in terms of institutionalproductivity and pro� tability. But which aspects of the work environment need to bechanged (if at all) to encourage higher levels of academic motivation within Aus-tralia’s universities? Speci� cally, which work environment characteristics representhigh/low sources of work motivation for academics in Australian universities? Toaddress these questions, a 1998 study examined the quality of work life of full-timeacademics within universities in Australia (Winter & Sarros, 2001; Winter et al.,2000). On the basis of study � ndings, four questions are addressed in this paper:
1. What levels of work motivation do full-time academics in Australian universitiesexhibit?
2. To what extent do demographic variables explain levels of work motivation?3. Which work environment characteristics represent high/low sources of academic
work motivation?4. What are the implications of these � ndings for leadership in universities?
To situate academics’ responses, � ndings are aggregated under the headings of: (1)Work Motivation, (2) Positive Work Environment Characteristics, and (3) NegativeWork Environment Characteristics. The paper begins by describing the study’sconceptual framework, sample and survey methods. The paper concludes by high-lighting the positive and negative aspects of academic work and discussing theimplications of these � ndings for leadership in universities.
The Study
Conceptual Framework
Following previous academic studies (Sarros, Gmelch, & Tanewski, 1997; 1998;Taylor et al., 1998; Winter et al., 2000; Wolverton et al., 1999), the study focusedon the perceived work environment to understand and explain an individual aca-demic’s attitudes and motivation at work. Academics were asked to report their: (1)personal (i.e. age, gender) and professional characteristics (i.e. quali� cations, pos-ition, role, discipline area); (2) work environment perceptions (i.e. degree of rolestress, nature of job characteristics, immediate supervisor’s leadership style, degreeof university centralisation and formalisation); and (3) work attitudes (i.e. job
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
asm
ania
] at
22:
37 2
7 N
ovem
ber
2014
Australian Universities—A Motivating Work Environment? 243
FIG. 1. Conceptual model.
involvement and organisational commitment). The study’s Conceptual Model isshown in Figure 1.
Re� ecting employee involvement (Gollan & Davis, 1999; Vandenberg, Richard-son, & Eastman, 1999) and motivational approaches (Amabile et al., 1996; Hack-man & Oldham, 1980) to work design, academics were assumed to be intrinsicallymotivated by their disciplines and related teaching and research tasks (Lacy &Sheehan, 1997; McInnis, 1996, 2000), but extrinsically demotivated by workcontext factors such as insuf� cient funding and resources, and poor managementpractices (Gillespie et al., 2001; Martin, 1999; Winter & Sarros, 2001). That is,academics are more likely to express positive work attitudes towards their jobs anduniversities when: (1) roles are clear and achievable, (2) job tasks are challenging,(3) supervisors exercise supportive styles of leadership, and (4) organisation struc-tures permit academics to in� uence decision making. Conversely, academics aremore likely to express weak levels of motivation when roles are unclear and/oroverloaded, tasks are narrow and unchanging, supervisors show academics littlesupport or consideration, and university structures limit academic participation indecision making.
Academics’ evaluations of the work environment are manifest in two broad workattitudes: job involvement (Kanungo, 1982) and organisational commitment (Mow-day, Steers & Porter, 1979). Both attitudes represent well-established indicators ofan individual’s motivation at work (Brown, 1996; Mayer & Schoorman, 1992). Anacademic involved in her/his job “implies a positive and relatively complete state ofengagement of core aspects of the self in the job” (Brown, 1996, p. 235). Anacademic expressing commitment to the university indicates a willingness to remaina member of that institution and to exert considerable effort on its behalf (Mowdayet al., 1979, p. 226). Studies have shown that job involvement and organisational
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
asm
ania
] at
22:
37 2
7 N
ovem
ber
2014
244 R. Winter & J. Sarros
commitment are distinct constructs (Brooke, Russell, & Price, 1988; Mathieu &Farr, 1991).
Survey Design
A self-administered mail survey, the Academic Work Environment Survey (AWES),was designed to provide comprehensive measures of academics’ demographic char-acteristics, work environment perceptions and work attitudes (see Figure 1). The99-item survey was pre-tested (18 academic participants at various levels across fouracademic disciplines) and piloted in a comprehensive Australian university (Winter,Sarros & Tanewski, 1998; Winter et al., 2000). Five-point Likert scales measuredacademic responses (1 5 never true to 5 5 always true, 1 5 strongly disagree to5 5 strongly agree). In addition, an open-ended question asked respondents tocomment on their feelings towards their current job environment.
Established work environment and work attitude scales were sourced on the basisof their reported reliability, discriminant validity and use in educational settings [1].Respondents indicated the extent to which their current job environments werecharacterised by role stress (Beehr, Walsh, & Taber, 1976; Rizzo, House, &Lirtzman, 1970), enriching job characteristics (Amabile & Gryskiewicz, 1989; Sims,Szilagyi, & Keller, 1976), supportive supervisory leadership (Stogdill, 1963), oppor-tunities to participate in (university) decision making (Aiken & Hage, 1966) andformalised rules, policies and procedures (Finlay et al., 1995). Job involvement wasmeasured using Kanungo’s (1982) ten-item scale (a 5 0.87) and organisationalcommitment using seven items (a 5 0.84) from Mowday et al.’s (1979) Organiza-tional Commitment Questionnaire.
Sample
Between August and September 1998, surveys were administered to 2,609 full-timeequivalent academics strati� ed by position (� ve levels), discipline (� ve disciplineareas) and type of university (i.e. four university groups). A total of 1,041 usablesurveys were returned (effective response rate of 40 per cent). Table 1 shows thetarget population and � nal sample by academic position and discipline area cate-gories. As can be seen, the sample was fairly representative of the target populationin terms of both strati� cation variables.
Most of the 1,041 respondents were male (65 per cent), aged between 40 and 59years of age (69 per cent), tenured/ongoing (76 per cent), held a doctorate degree(65 per cent) and engaged primarily in teaching and research roles (75 per cent). Amajority of respondents indicated they had seven or more years at their currentuniversity (65 per cent) and in the higher education sector (73 per cent).
Data Analysis
Data analysis consisted of descriptive statistics (means, standard deviations) andqualitative comments to describe academics’ perceptions and attitudes at work.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
asm
ania
] at
22:
37 2
7 N
ovem
ber
2014
Australian Universities—A Motivating Work Environment? 245
TABLE 1. Target population and � nal sample by academic position and discipline areas
Category Target population Final samplea
Academic positiona
Associate lecturer 602 8.7 79 7.6Lecturer 2,349 33.9 316 30.4Senior lecturer 2,044 29.5 343 32.9Associate professor 1,046 15.1 151 14.5Professor 891 12.8 123 11.8Missing 29 2.8TOTALS 6,932 100.0 1,041 100.0
Discipline areasb
Education/Humanities 1,771 25.5 326 31.3Science/Mathematics/Computing 1,536 22.2 222 21.3Business/Economics/Law 1,002 14.5 163 15.7Architecture/Engineering 750 10.8 105 10.1Health Sciences 1,873 27.0 222 21.3Other 1 0.1Missing 2 0.2TOTALS 6,932 100.0 1,041 100.0
a Chi-square test indicated no statistically signi� cant difference (c2 5 1.45, df 5 4,p . .05).b Chi-square test indicated no statistically signi� cant difference (c2 5 0.66, df 5 4,p . .05).
Correlation and multiple regression analyses were employed to: (1) examine workenvironment–work attitude associations, and (2) identify signi� cant predictors ofwork motivation. For cross-sample analysis purposes, mean responses were groupedaccording to the survey’s � ve-point scale classi� cation:
1. strongly negative (mean under 2.50)2. negative (2.51 to 2.90)3. neutral (2.91 to 3.09)4. positive (3.10 to 3.50)5. strongly positive (mean over 3.50).
Table 2 presents reliabilities, means, standard deviations and correlation coef� cientsfor all work environment and work attitude scales. Eleven of the thirteen scalesexceeded or approximated Nunnally’s (1978) 0.70 criterion for adequate reliability.Construct validity was supported by scale correlation coef� cients showing similarsigns and degrees of magnitude as reported in the survey pilot (n 5 189) conductedeleven months earlier (Winter et al., 2000, p. 286). For example, signi� cant positivecorrelations between organisational commitment and job characteristics (r 5 0.29,0.24, 0.32, 0.39) indicated the more autonomy, task identity, feedback and jobchallenge academics experience at work, the greater their levels of university com-mitment.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
asm
ania
] at
22:
37 2
7 N
ovem
ber
2014
246 R. Winter & J. Sarros
TA
BL
E2
.C
ron
bac
hal
ph
are
liab
iliti
es,
mea
nsa ,
stan
dar
dd
evia
tion
s,an
dco
rrel
atio
nco
ef�
cien
tsfo
rw
ork
envi
ron
men
tan
dw
ork
atti
tud
eva
riab
les
(N5
1,0
41)
Var
iabl
ea
MS
.D.
F1
F2
F3
F4
F5
F6
F7
F8
F9
F10
F11
F12
F13
Wor
ken
viro
nm
ent
perc
epti
ons
Rol
est
ress
Rol
eam
big
uit
y—F
10.
832.
101.
391.
00R
ole
con�
ict—
F2
0.61
3.13
1.52
0.29
1.00
Rol
eov
erlo
ad—
F3
0.71
3.81
1.48
0.20
0.41
1.00
Job
char
acte
rist
ics
Au
tono
my—
F4
0.73
4.37
1.10
2.3
32
.21
2.1
81.
00T
ask
iden
tity
—F
50.
584.
580.
892
.29
2.2
52
.24
0.39
1.00
Fee
dba
ck—
F6
0.70
2.52
1.59
2.3
92
.23
2.1
60.
140.
151.
00
Job
chal
leng
e—F
70.
834.
331.
102
.36
2.2
00.
010.
450.
290.
22
1.00
Sup
ervi
sory
styl
eC
onsi
der
atio
n—
F8
0.92
3.30
1.56
2.4
52
.28
2.1
30.
260.
200.
51
0.29
1.00
Org
anis
atio
nst
ruct
ure
Hie
rarc
hy
ofau
thor
ity—
F9
0.76
3.02
1.57
0.21
0.21
0.09
2.2
82
.16
2.1
72
.28
2.2
71.
00P
arti
cipa
tion
—F
100.
842.
891.
702
.23
2.0
00.
060.
220.
080.
21
0.24
0.27
2.3
01.
00F
orm
alis
atio
n—F
110.
693.
901.
270.
030.
180.
142
.13
2.1
02
.01
2.0
62
.06
0.37
0.01
1.0
0W
ork
atti
tud
esJo
bin
volv
emen
t—F
120.
873.
321.
512
.12
2.0
40.
090.
110.
060.
05
0.29
0.12
2.1
20.
160.
04
1.00
Org
.co
mm
itm
ent—
F13
0.84
3.23
1.57
2.3
62
.31
2.2
30.
290.
240.
32
0.39
0.40
2.3
40.
262
.13
0.23
1.00
Not
e:F
oral
lco
rrel
atio
ns,
ifr$
.15,
p,
.05
(2-t
aile
d);
r$.2
0,p
,.0
1(2
-tai
led)
.a
Mea
nre
spon
ses
grou
ped
as1
5st
ron
gly
neg
ativ
e(m
ean
un
der
2.50
);2
5ne
gati
ve(2
.51
to2.
90);
35
neu
tral
(2.9
1to
3.09
);4
5p
osit
ive
(3.1
0to
3.50
);5
5st
ron
gly
posi
tive
(mea
nov
er3.
50).
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
asm
ania
] at
22:
37 2
7 N
ovem
ber
2014
Australian Universities—A Motivating Work Environment? 247
Results
Work Motivation
Table 2 indicates academics overall (n 5 1,012) reported moderate levels of jobinvolvement and organisational commitment (M 5 3.32, 3.23, respectively).Respondents indicated strongly they were “very much involved personally” in theirjobs (M 5 4.62) and liked “to be absorbed in [their] jobs most of the time”(M 5 3.63). Comments indicated academics were intrinsically motivated by the coretasks of teaching and research (McInnis, 1996) but demotivated by mundane“administrivia” (Currie, 1996):
I enjoy teaching more than anything, in the � eld of maths curriculum andmaths enrichment for teachers. If I could just do that as my main (only)task, I would be most ful� lled and happy! (Lecturer/Regional)
I thoroughly enjoy my work as a full time researcher supervising a team anddoing extra myself. (Associate Professor/Metropolitan)
Academic life is becoming increasingly dominated by mundane adminis-trative tasks which have little to do with the primary objectives of teaching,research and services to the profession. (Professor/Sandstone)
I’m afraid that the life of an academic is one where “the buck stops here”!As universities scrimp and save, the resources to assist academics arewhittled away to almost nil leaving a highly trained professional in theirdiscipline to cope with all the trivia of typing, preparing Web pages,entering and calculating marks, booking the buses etc. This results in staffthat are too � at out to concentrate and their core business—studentsthereby suffer. (Senior Lecturer/Regional)
Academics expressed strong organisational commitment in terms of “really caringabout the fate of this university” (M 5 4.22) and “being willing to put in a great dealof effort beyond that normally expected to help this university be successful”(M 5 4.04). However, academics responded negatively to the statements that theiruniversity “inspires the very best in the way of job performance” (M 5 2.46) and “isthe best of all possible universities for which to work” (M 5 2.50). Commentsindicated academics felt their effort and loyalty had not always been matched byuniversity recognition and rewards:
My job is an enjoyable one and I feel I put in far more hours than I am paidfor. I don’t necessarily have a problem with working extra hours, howeverit is the lack of acknowledged recognition by the university which I see asthe problem. (Lecturer/Regional)
My experience has been that I receive much greater recognition for myteaching and research efforts from my lay colleagues in the profession ofoptometry. I � nd they are willing to spend quite a bit on money attendingmy courses arranged independently of the university. This seems to rein-
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
asm
ania
] at
22:
37 2
7 N
ovem
ber
2014
248 R. Winter & J. Sarros
force the notion that the problem lies with the university administrationrather than the quality of my efforts. (Senior Lecturer/Sandstone)
Despite producing high quality work I feel devalued. I have experiencedintense stress due to work overload. I intend to pursue a career outsideacademia and leave as soon as it is feasible. (Lecturer/UOT)
Commitment responses revealed a perceived violation in the “psychological con-tract” between academics and their universities (Morrison & Robinson, 1997;Rousseau, 1995). Faced by greater university demands to work more hours withdecreased funding and resources (Gillespie et al., 2001, p. 53), long-serving staffmembers question the validity of the psychological contract (i.e. recognition andsteady rewards in return for hard work and loyalty) and their own universitycommitment. Poor university recognition and rewards practices signify to staff theirprofessional work is not valued by university management (see Martin, 1999,pp. 76–77). A perceived lack of institutional support for teaching at the lecturerlevels, compounded by increased workloads, seems to exert a depressing effect onlecturers’ motivation and work performance (Hill, 2000; McInnis, 2000). Re-gression results (see Table 3) for academic staff motivation at the lecturer level(b 5 2 .26, 2 .23, p , .05) and for staff occupying teaching only roles (b 5 2 .20,2 .14, p , .05) provided some support for this proposition.
Demographic Variables
Academics’ personal and professional characteristics explained approximately 9 percent of the variance in job involvement (DAdjusted R2 5 .09) and 8 per cent of thevariance in organisational commitment (DAdjusted R2 5 .08). Interestingly, age,gender and discipline areas showed no statistically signi� cant in� uence on workmotivation. However, academic position and quali� cations were strong predictors ofwork motivation.
Associate professor and professorial positions positively and signi� cantly predictedjob involvement (b 5 .46, .41, p , .01) and organisational commitment (b 5 .27, .36,p , .05). In contrast, associate lecturer and lecturer positions negatively andsigni� cantly predicted job involvement (b 5 2 .50, 2 .26, p , .05) and lecturer andsenior lecturer positions negatively and signi� cantly predicted organisational com-mitment (b 5 2 .23, 2 .20, p , .05). Differences in work motivation by positionre� ected differences in primary work roles. For instance, academics in teaching onlyroles (n 5 99) and teaching and research roles (n 5 778) reported signi� cantly lowerlevels of organisational commitment (M 5 2.72, 2.65 respectively) compared toacademics in more senior administrative roles (M 5 3.38, n 5 138)(F[3,1028] 5 10.45, p , .05). Results suggest a more de� ned teaching role providesfewer opportunities to be research active, in� uence university decision making, andderive recognition and rewards from the university (Neumann & Finaly-Neumann,1990). As such, lecturers express lower levels of attachment to their jobs anduniversities compared to staff at professorial levels.
Quali� cations negatively and signi� cantly predicted organisational commitment
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
asm
ania
] at
22:
37 2
7 N
ovem
ber
2014
Australian Universities—A Motivating Work Environment? 249
TABLE 3. Multiple regression analysis for prediction of job involvement and organisationalcommitment factors by demographic variables and work environment factors
Job involvementa Organisational commitmentb
Predictors Beta t Beta t
Demographic variablesMale 0.05 0.81 0.05 0.85Female 2 .10 2 1.66 0.02 0.37Associate lecturer 2 .50 2 2.92** 2 .22 2 1.27Lecturer 2 .26 2 2.57* 2 .23 2 2.34*Senior lecturer 2 .18 2 1.94 2 .20 2 2.15*Associate professor 0.46 3.73*** 0.27 2.18*Professor 0.41 2.87** 0.36 2.52*Teaching only 2 .20 2 3.06** 2 .14 2 2.13*Doctorate degree 2 .18 2 1.94 2 .23 2 2.58*Masters degree 2 .26 2 2.71* 2 .15 2 1.56Graduate degree 0.20 1.36 0.34 2.27*Research university 0.02 0.63 0.11 3.20**Metropolitan university 2 .00 2 .04 0.10 2.92**University of Technology 2 .01 2 .32 2 .07 2 2.05*Regional university 2 .01 2 .40 2 .06 2 1.68
DAdjusted R2 5 .09, DF 5 3.26*** DAdjusted R2 5 .08, DF 5 3.74***Work environment perceptionsRole stress
Role ambiguity 2 .26 2 7.93*** 2 .39 2 12.87***Role con� ict 0.13 3.91*** 2 .18 2 6.06***Role overload 2 .12 2 3.82*** 2 .26 2 8.83***
DAdjusted R2 5 .02, DF 5 10.21*** DAdjusted R2 5 .18, DF 5 77.91***Job characteristics
Autonomy 0.06 1.48 0.08 2.34*Task identity 0.17 4.46*** 0.10 2.94**Feedback 0.04 1.08 0.21 6.26***Job challenge 0.33 9.56*** 0.26 8.44***
DAdjusted R2 5 .06, DF 5 23.88*** DAdjusted R2 5 .05, DF 5 18.08***
Supervisory styleConsiderationc 0.02 0.46 0.20 4.12***
DAdjusted R2 5 .00, DF 5 2.49 DAdjusted R2 5 .02, DF 5 10.55***Organisation structure
Hierarchy of authority 2 .09 2 2.42* 2 .22 2 6.99***Participation 2 .04 2 0.95 0.16 4.53***Formalisation 0.05 1.73 2 .05 2 1.80
DAdjusted R2 5 .01, DF 5 3.58* DAdjusted R2 5 .03, DF 5 21.50***
*p , 0.05, **p , 0.01, ***p , 0.001.a Job Involvement factor measures the degree to which an individual academic expresses a state ofpsychological attachment (or separation) with (from) their job (Kanungo, 1982, p. 116).b Organisational Commitment factor measures the degree to which an individual academic expressesa strong desire to maintain membership of the university (Mowday et al., 1979, p. 226).c Consideration factor measures the degree to which the immediate supervisor supports (and showsconcern for) the well-being of group members (Schriesheim & Stogdill, 1975, p. 198).
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
asm
ania
] at
22:
37 2
7 N
ovem
ber
2014
250 R. Winter & J. Sarros
for the majority of academics (n 5 677) holding doctorate degrees (b 5 2 .23,p , .05). In contrast, the graduate degree variable (n 5 51) positively andsigni� cantly predicted organisational commitment (b 5 .34, p , .05). These resultsindicate university commitment is relatively strong for those academics in the earlystages of their career but commitment declines at later career stages (McInnis, 2000,p. 16).
Positive Work Environment Characteristics
Academics reported positive (motivating) job characteristics, low levels of roleambiguity (i.e. they were clear about the nature of their roles and responsibilities)and supportive supervisory leadership at work.
Role Clarity
Academics overall reported low role ambiguity (M 5 2.10), a motivating workenvironment characteristic for various occupational groups since it indicates theorganisation has in place structural mechanisms to guide employee behaviour(Glisson & Durick, 1988; O’Driscoll & Beehr, 1994). Academics reported strongrole clarity in terms of “knowing what [their] responsibilities are (M 5 4.53), being“certain about how much authority [they] have in [their] jobs” (M 5 3.91) and“knowing exactly what is expected of [them]” (M 5 3.73). Table 3 shows that roleambiguity negatively predicted both work motivation variables (b 5 2 .26, 2 .39,p , .001). Hence, the less role ambiguity academics perceive at work, the greatertheir motivation and job performance.
Job Characteristics
Academics strongly agreed they often saw “projects or jobs through to completion”(Task Identity, M 5 4.53), “felt tasks at work were challenging” (Job Challenge,M 5 4.54) and jobs provided “the opportunity for independent thought and action”(Autonomy, M 5 4.48). Similar standard deviations across the three measures (0.89,1.10, 1.10) indicated a relatively high level of agreement across the sample. Re-gression results (see Table 3) identi� ed job challenge as a key source of workmotivation in academe (b 5 .33, .26, p , .001). Job challenge provides opportunitiesfor recognition, responsibility and personal growth at work (Fried & Ferris, 1987).When engaged and motivated by job tasks, academics are more likely to expresscommitment to their universities.
Supervisory Consideration
Respondents rated their immediate supervisor as exhibiting a considerate andsupportive leadership style (M 5 3.30). Considerate supervisors gave “advancenotice of changes that affect academics’ work” (M 5 3.40), put “suggestions madeby the group into operation” (M 5 3.39), and encouraged “group members to speak
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
asm
ania
] at
22:
37 2
7 N
ovem
ber
2014
Australian Universities—A Motivating Work Environment? 251
up when they disagreed with a decision” (M 5 3.28). Respondents’ commentssuggested supervisory consideration has a positive effect on the work motivation ofacademics:
My supervisor likes to be in touch and informed about the goings on in thedepartment and can be approached when problems arise. I am happy inthis environment and get on with my fellow workers. (Associate Professor/Sandstone)
Despite having worked in my current position for 25 1 years, I still gain alot of satisfaction, due mainly to a dedicated and humane supervisor.(Senior Lecturer/Metropolitan)
Results (see Tables 2 and 3 respectively) indicated supportive leadership had apositive and signi� cant effect on academics’ commitment (r 5 .40, b 5 .20, p , .01,p , .001 respectively) but had no discernible effect on academics’ job involvement(r 5 .12, b 5 .02). According to Ramsden (1998b), supportive leaders build commit-ment in academe when they make a concerted effort to encourage and support thework of colleagues (e.g. by resourcing staff development, recognising new teachingskills, encouraging colleagues to learn from each other). Job involvement isin� uenced more by personality variables (i.e. self-esteem, work ethic) and jobcharacteristics rather than the leadership styles of supervisors (Brown, 1996).
Negative Work Environment Characteristics
Academics expressed negative (demotivating) work environment characteristics inthe form of role overload, low job feedback, and moderate levels of participation inuniversity decision making.
Role Overload
Most respondents rated role overload, a stress characteristic indicated by excessivework/time pressures, as a characteristic of their work environments (M 5 3.81).Academics rated “too much work for one person to do” (M 5 4.34) and thereverse-scored item “I am given enough time to do what is expected of me in myjob” (M 5 2.47) as their most stressful overload characteristics. Unrealistic perform-ance expectations were rated as the least stressful role overload characteristic(M 5 3.11). Respondents’ comments revealed the pervasive nature of role overload:
Massive teaching and admin responsibilities threaten to overtake my re-search. Although the students are very bright and mostly highly motivated,the teaching hours (10–12 hrs p.w. of seminars intervals plus 2 hrs lecturesp.w. plus PhD and Masters supervision) plus crunching marking demandsand enormous admin. responsibilities, make life dif� cult. (Associate Lec-turer/Sandstone)
Mostly, there are too many pressures. I work about 60 hours per week
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
asm
ania
] at
22:
37 2
7 N
ovem
ber
2014
252 R. Winter & J. Sarros
during semester and I am trying to complete a PhD. The expectations aretoo high. On one hand I am told to reduce my workload so that I cancomplete the PhD, on the other, I am then given additional work andgreater role responsibility!! It’s exhausting! (Lecturer/Regional)
Although I have a degree of autonomy and supportive supervisors (2departmental heads, the Dean), the sheer amount of work involved inmajor curriculum revision is daunting. The waters are often unchartered! Ialso participate at Academic Board level as a Chair of a major committee,a substantial workload that is not particularly well resourced or supported.The job has taken over my life! (Professor/Sandstone)
Negative correlation and beta coef� cients (see Tables 2 and 3 respectively) indicatedrole overload reduces academics’ organisational commitment. Academic staff facing“multiple research, teaching and administrative responsibilities” (Gillespie et al.,2001, p. 63), including the requirements to be more “entrepreneurial” (Winter &Sarros, 2001), report insuf� cient recognition and rewards systems in their universi-ties. A perceived inequitable “effort-rewards exchange” translates into lower levels ofuniversity commitment as staff re-evaluate their psychological contracts in terms ofperceived promises and/or ful� lled obligations (Rousseau, 1995). Faced by increasesin the numbers and diversity of students, new teaching modalities (e.g. Web-basedlearning, � exible delivery), three semesters of teaching and unrealistic deadlines,many staff feel disconnected from their institutions and unwilling to exert extraeffort on its behalf (Gava, 2001; Winter et al., 2000; Winter & Sarros, 2001).
Feedback
Academics overall reported low levels of feedback on their job performance(M 5 2.52), a demotivating characteristic according to job/work design studies(Fried & Ferris, 1987). Respondents indicated they did not “receive feedback fromtheir supervisors on how well they were doing their jobs” (M 5 2.38) and “could not� nd out [as they were working] how well they were doing their jobs” (M 5 2.76):
I am new to my current position and whilst I am enjoying the job itself andthe challenges it presents I do feel that there is minimal support from mysupervisor. I am really left to get on with my job with little supervision orfeedback. (Associate Lecturer/Metropolitan)
The job I am doing is immensely challenging, I would like more advice andmentoring about my performance, but any supervisor has neither the timenor the expertise to provide either. (Senior Lecturer/Metropolitan)
Academics reported not receiving timely job feedback from supervisors and/or fromuniversity performance appraisal systems. A lack of feedback means academics donot always know when and how to change their work performance to increasedesired outcomes such as promotion. Hence, the less feedback academics perceiveat work, the lower their university commitment (Martin, 1999; Taylor, 1999;
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
asm
ania
] at
22:
37 2
7 N
ovem
ber
2014
Australian Universities—A Motivating Work Environment? 253
Trowler, 1998). Positive correlation and beta coef� cients (see Tables 2 and 3)provided support for this proposition.
Participation in Decision Making
Across the sample, academics reported moderately low participation in universitydecision making (M 5 2.89), a condition associated with low levels of employeecommitment and work performance (Spector, 1986). Low participation wasreported in terms of participating in decisions on “new university policies”(M 5 2.20), decisions that “in� uence departmental policy” (M 5 2.35), and deci-sions on “the promotion of academic staff” (M 5 2.39). Respondents indicated theyhad decision making authority with respect to discharging their job responsibilitiesbut had limited authority over resource and policy decisions in the university:
I have a lot of discretion within my own management area, but decisionstaken above my level profoundly affect my ability to achieve my objectives,yet I have little in� uence or even prior knowledge of these decisions. Thisis profoundly frustrating. (Associate Professor/UOT)
Main problems arise from university hierarchy. For example, decisions aremade by senior executive (Vice-Chancellor) without consultation, whichhave signi� cant implications for my work. There appears to be no meansto in� uence this process. (Lecturer/Sandstone)
As expected, participation and commitment was found to differ signi� cantly byposition in the university hierarchy. Professors expressed relatively higher levels ofparticipation and commitment to their universities (M 5 4.18, 3.15) compared tolecturers (M 5 1.48, 2.55). As collegial governance continues to decline in Aus-tralian universities (Marginson & Considine, 2000), it seems likely lecturers willparticipate less and less in university decision making and express low levels ofuniversity commitment.
Conclusion
Academics reported moderate levels of attachment to the job tasks they perform (i.e.tasks are engaging and challenging) and satisfaction with the immediate conditionsunder which work is performed (i.e. role clarity, autonomy, supportive leadership).Motivating job characteristics (McInnis, 1996) satisfy academics’ personal growthneeds: a critical psychological state associated with important outcomes such as jobsatisfaction, intrinsic motivation and work effectiveness (Hackman & Oldham, 1980;Kiggundu, 1990). Another positive work environment feature is role clarity. Aca-demics know what their responsibilities are and what is expected of them indicatinguniversities have in place suf� cient goals, policies and systems to guide academicbehaviour. The work environment also bene� ts from supportive supervisory leader-ship. Friendly and approachable supervisors help colleagues solve work-relatedproblems thus providing the psychological support needed to cope with complex job
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
asm
ania
] at
22:
37 2
7 N
ovem
ber
2014
254 R. Winter & J. Sarros
demands. This support has a positive impact on work effort and commitment inacademe (Ramsden, 1998b; Taylor, 2000).
High levels of role overload and low levels of job feedback counterbalance positivework environment characteristics. A national study of academic work roles(n 5 2,609) in 15 universities between 1994 and 1999 con� rmed academics areworking longer hours, spending less time on teaching, and more time on demotivat-ing administrative work (McInnis, 2000). Faced by a myriad of work tasks notcentral to their training, interests or job satisfaction, academics often expressfrustration, disgust and dissatisfaction—stress responses directed at the university(Winter & Sarros, 2001). As universities continue to search for ef� ciencies in asector characterised by declining public funding and corporate reform, it seemslikely work overload will continue to exert a negative impact on academic moraleand motivation (Gillespie et al., 2001). Low job feedback is another demotivatingwork environment characteristic in academe since academics do not know whichaspect of their job performance meets agreed university targets or goals (Martin,1999; Winter et al., 2000). The recent introduction of performance appraisals for alllevels of academic staff (as part of the move towards enterprise bargaining) mayalleviate this problem by providing, at the very least, an annual assessment andfeedback of job performance.
So is the academic work environment a motivating place to work? The answer tothis question depends upon your position in the university hierarchy, the nature ofyour role demands, your job characteristics and the style of your immediate supervi-sor. For instance, the academic work environment is motivating when you hold aprofessorial position (i.e. high levels of participation), your role demands andresponsibilities are clear and manageable, you are engaged in challenging andrewarding research and/or administrative tasks, and your immediate supervisor’sstyle is considerate and supportive. The academic work environment is demotivatingwhen you are a lecturer, your teaching role demands are overloaded and/or notrecognised or rewarded, and when you have little opportunity to in� uence universitydecision making (to make changes to your work role).
Implications for University Leadership
The implications of an environment of consumerism in higher education (i.e.students as clients, academics as providers) on university leadership are signi� cant.Speci� cally, university leaders are rapidly disappearing in an environment thatrequires everyday management of declining resources, limited time, and increasinglydisenfranchised staff. In such a � uid environment, leadership is most needed, butleast valued. Demands for more entrepreneurial, risk-seeking academic behaviour isoften sti� ed by bureaucratic structures that reinforce status differences and therespective boundaries between management and employees. An obvious strategy incounteracting this situation is the recognition that university leadership is fundamen-tally different to, but just as critical to competitive sustainability, as is universitymanagement. That is, more attention needs to be paid to the “creation of ideas andthe motivation and celebration of people” in universities rather than the current
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
asm
ania
] at
22:
37 2
7 N
ovem
ber
2014
Australian Universities—A Motivating Work Environment? 255
management focus of controlling resources and things (Sarros & Butchatsky, 1996,p. 2). The “reframing process” (see Bartunek, 1988; Winter, Sarros & Tanewski,1997) might begin by senior management challenging established norms of univer-sity operations and considering (reframing) the bene� ts of leadership practices thatempower academics to develop their knowledge and skills in the best interests of theuniversity (Nadler & Tushman, 1989).
As Ramsden (1998a, p. 362) points out, the key to improving motivation andperformance in our universities lies in more effective leadership. Heads of depart-ment occupy critical leadership positions in our universities since they have theauthority to determine academic workloads, and the position to in� uence the cultureof the work units for which they are responsible (Ramsden, 1998b, p. 12). Hence,motivating job tasks can be assigned (e.g. a unit/course that � ts the academic’sinterests and expertise) and/or a demotivating work environment encouraged (e.g.unit/course overload, no informal feedback). Thus, a crucial leadership challenge forheads of departments is to assign job tasks ef� ciently and effectively (managerialvalues) while recognising and maintaining the importance of professional job growthand collegial relations (academic values). Walking this tightrope in a considerate andsupportive manner should encourage academic work motivation irrespective ofchanges to the broader university environment (Taylor, 2000).
Corporate work practices have accelerated the demands for staff to work smarterand harder, especially in situations where teaching and research values are high. Theproliferation of “non-core” work activities means lower levels of motivation foracademics since these activities intrude on research activity—the priority in theacademic reward system (McInnis, 2000, p. 14). To encourage more research andreduce gaps in academic-institution expectations, heads of department shouldconsider (funds permitting) employing Administrative Assistants to undertake non-core activities such as data requirements (from managers and government bodies)and casual academic employment issues (Sarros et al., 1997, p. 21). Relievingresearchers of large administrative workloads should lower the stress levels of staffand help to raise the department’s research pro� le.
To reduce stress and increase staff commitment at lecturer levels, universityleaders need to make a concerted effort to recognise and reward the wide range ofroles and tasks staff undertake at work. As noted by the report of the DearingCommittee in the UK (NCIHE, 1997, para.14.12), more � exible criteria forpromotion is needed to re� ect actual work activities rather than an idealised“checklist” of what academics should do to be effective. Recognition and support forstaff development and learning (e.g. Web-based curriculum design) would providea strong message to lecturers that their teaching is valued by the university.Academic leaders might also provide more informal feedback on actual job perform-ance so academics can adjust work activities to achieve desired outcomes.
Leaders create favourable work conditions for academic staff motivation whenthey convey a positive valuation of academics’ contributions and job performance.By recognising the signi� cance of work undertaken by staff and providing opportu-nities for increased rewards and promotion, leaders create a felt obligation to careabout the university’s welfare. It is this “perceived organisational support” (or lack
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
asm
ania
] at
22:
37 2
7 N
ovem
ber
2014
256 R. Winter & J. Sarros
of it) that explains academics’ emotional commitment to their universities (Meyer &Allen, 1997). By demonstrating support for staff motivation, leaders can establish acontext whereby academics feel more inclined to help the university reach its goals.
Address for correspondence: Dr Richard Winter, Department of Management, MonashUniversity Gippsland, Churchill VIC 3842, Australia. E-mail: [email protected]
Note
[1] Measures available from � rst author on request.
References
Aiken, M., & Hage, J. (1966). Organizational alienation: A comparative analysis. AmericanSociological Review, 31(4), 497–507.
Amabile, T.M., & Gryskiewicz, N.D. (1989). The creative environment scales: Work environ-ment inventory. Creativity Research Journal, 2, 231–253.
Amabile, T.M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the workenvironment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39(5), 1154–1184.
Bartunek, J.M. (1988). The dynamics of personal and organizational reframing. In R.E. Quinn &K.S. Cameron (Eds.), Paradox and transformation: Toward a theory of change in organizationand management (pp. 137–168). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
Beehr, T.A., Walsh, J.T., & Taber, T.D. (1976). Relationship of stress to individually andorganizationally valued states: Higher order needs as a moderator. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 61, 41–47.
Brooke, P.P. Jr., Russell, D.W., & Price, J.L. (1988). Discriminant validation of measures of jobsatisfaction, job involvement, and organizational commitment. Journal of Applied Psychology,73(2), 139–145.
Brown, S.P. (1996). A meta-analysis and review of organizational research on job involvement.Psychological Bulletin, 120(2), 235–255.
Clarke, H. (1998). Dumbing-down in Australian universities. Quadrant, 42, 55–59.Currie, J. (1996, July). The effects of globalisation on 1990s academics in greedy institutions:
overworked, stressed out, marginalised and demoralised. Paper presented at the 9th WorldCongress of Comparative Education, University of Sydney, NSW.
Debats, D., & Ward, A. (1998). Degrees of difference: Reshaping the university in Australia and theUnited States. Sydney, NSW: Australian Centre for American Studies, University of Sydney.
Finlay, W., Martin, J.K., Roman, P.M., & Blum, T.C. (1995). Organizational structure and jobsatisfaction: Do bureaucratic organizations produce more satis� ed employees? Administra-tion and Society, 27(3), 427–450.
Fried, Y., & Ferris, G. (1987). The validity of the job characteristics model: A review andmeta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 40, 287–322.
Gallagher, M. (2000, September). The emergence of entrepreneurial public universities in Australia.Paper presented at the IMHE General Conference of the OECD, Paris. DETYA Oc-casional Paper Series.
Gava, J. (2001, March 28). Too busy writing to think. The Australian Higher Education Supplement,46.
Gillespie, N.A., Walsh, M., Wine� eld, A.H., Dua, J., & Stough, C. (2001). Occupational stressin universities: Staff perceptions of the causes, consequences and moderators of stress. Work& Stress, 15(1), 53–72.
Glisson, C., & Durick, M. (1988). Predictors of job satisfaction and organizational commitmentin human service organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 33, 61–81.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
asm
ania
] at
22:
37 2
7 N
ovem
ber
2014
Australian Universities—A Motivating Work Environment? 257
Gollan, P.J., & Davis, E.M. (1999). High involvement management and organisational change:Beyond rhetoric. Australian Paci� c Journal of Human Resources, 37(2), 69–91.
Hackman, J.R., & Oldham, G.R. (1980). Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Hill, R. (2000). A study of the views of full-time further education lecturers regarding their college
corporations and agencies of the further education sector. Journal of Further and HigherEducation, 24(1), 67–75.
Kanungo, R.N. (1982). Measurement of job and work involvement. Journal of Applied Psychology,67(3), 341–349.
Kiggundu, M.N. (1990). An empirical test of the theory of job design using multiple job ratings.Human Relations, 33, 339–351.
Lacy, F.J. & Sheehan, B.A. (1997). Job satisfaction among academic staff: An internationalperspective. Higher Education, 34, 305–322.
Marginson, S., & Considine, M. (2000). The enterprise university: Power, governance and reinventionin Australia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Martin, E. (1999). Changing academic work: Developing the learning university. Buckingham:SRHE/Open University Press.
Mathieu, J.E., & Farr, J.L. (1991). Further evidence for the discriminant validity of measures oforganizational commitment, job involvement, and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psy-chology, 76(1), 127–133.
Mayer, R.C., & Schoorman, D.F. (1992). Predicting participation and production outcomesthrough a two-dimensional model of organizational commitment. Academy of ManagementJournal, 35(3), 671–684.
McInnis, C. (1996). Change and diversity in the work patterns of Australian academics. HigherEducation Management, 8(2), 105–117.
McInnis, C. (2000). The work roles of academics in Australian universities (Evaluations andInvestigations Programme Report No. 00/5). Canberra, ACT: Australian GovernmentPublishing Service. Available: http://www.detya.gov.au/archive/highered/eippubs
Meyer, J.P., & Allen, N.J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace: Theory, research and application.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Morrison, E.W., & Robinson, S.L. (1997). When employees feel betrayed: A model of howpsychological contract violation works. Academy of Management Review, 22(1), 226–256.
Mowday, R.T., Steers, R.M., & Porter, L.W. (1979). The measurement of organizationalcommitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, 224–247.
Nadler, D.A., & Tushman, M. (1989). Organizational frame bending, principles for managingreorientation. Academy of Management Executive, 1, 194–204.
NCIHE (National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education) (1997). Higher Education in thelearning society (Chaired by Ronald Dearing). Available: http://wwwd2.leeds.ac.uk/niche
Neumann, Y., & Finaly-Neumann, E. (1990). The reward-support framework and facultycommitment to their university. Research in Higher Education, 19, 351–375.
Nunnally, J.C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.O’Driscoll, M.P., & Beehr, T.A. (1994). Supervisor behaviors, role stressors and uncertainty as
predictors of personal outcomes for subordinates. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15(2),141–155.
Pratt, G., & Poole, D. (1999/2000). Global corporations ‘R’ Us? The impacts of globalisation onAustralian universities. Australian Universities Review, 42(2) & 43(1), 16–23.
Ramsden, P. (1998a). Managing the effective university. Higher Education Research & Develop-ment, 17(3), 347–370.
Ramsden, P. (1998b). Learning to lead in higher education. London: Routledge.Rizzo, J., House, R., & Lirtzman, S. (1970). Role con� ict and ambiguity in complex organiza-
tions. Administrative Science Quarterly, 15(2), 150–163.Rousseau, D. (1995). Psychological contracts in organizations—understanding written and unwritten
agreements. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Sarros, J.C., & Butchatsky, O. (1996). Leadership. Sydney: Harper Collins.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
asm
ania
] at
22:
37 2
7 N
ovem
ber
2014
258 R. Winter & J. Sarros
Sarros, J.C., Gmelch, W.H., & Tanewski, G.A. (1997). The role of department head in Australianuniversities: Changes and challenges. Higher Education Research & Development, 16(1),9–24.
Sarros, J.C., Gmelch, W.H., & Tanewski, G.A. (1998). The academic dean: A position in needof a compass and clock. Higher Education Research & Development, 17(1), 65–88.
Schriesheim, C.A., & Stogdill, R.M. (1975). Differences across three versions of the Ohio Stateleadership scales. Personnel Psychology, 28, 189–206.
Sims, H.P., Szilagyi, A.D., & Keller, R.T. (1976). The measurement of job characteristics.Academy of Management Journal, 19, 195–212.
Slaughter, S., & Leslie, L.L. (1997). Academic capitalism: Politics, policies, and the entrepreneurialuniversity. London: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Spector, P.E. (1986). Perceived control by employees: A meta-analysis of studies concerningautonomy and participation at work. Human Relations, 39(11), 1005–1016.
Stogdill, R.M. (1963). Manual for the leader behavior description questionnaire—form XII: Anexperimental revision. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press.
Taylor, P.G. (1999). Making sense of academic life: Academics, universities and change. Philadelphia,PA: Open University Press.
Taylor, P.G. (2000). Academic life today: Leadership, good will and collegiality. HERDSA News,22(3), 1, 3–4.
Taylor, T., Gough, J., Bundrock, V., & Winter, R. (1998). A bleak outlook: Academic staffperceptions of changes in core activities in Australian higher education, 1991–96. Studies inHigher Education, 23(3), 255–268.
Trowler, P.R. (1998). Academics responding to change: New higher education frameworks andacademic cultures. Buckingham: SRHE/Open University Press.
Vandenberg, R.J., Richardson, H.A., & Eastman, L.J. (1999). The impact of high involvementwork processes on organizational effectiveness. Group & Organization Management, 24(3),300–339.
Winter, R.P., Sarros, J.C., & Tanewski, G.A. (1997). Reframing managers’ control orientationsand practices: A proposed organizational learning framework. The International Journal ofOrganizational Analysis, 5(1), 9–24.
Winter, R.P., Sarros, J.C., & Tanewski, G.A. (1998, July). Quality of work life of academics inAustralian universities: A pilot study. Paper presented at the 1st International Work Psy-chology Conference, University of Shef� eld, Shef� eld, UK.
Winter, R.P., Taylor, T., & Sarros, J.C. (2000). Trouble at mill: Quality of academic worklifeissues within a comprehensive Australian university. Studies in Higher Education, 25(3),279–294.
Winter, R.P., & Sarros, J.C. (2001, July). Corporate reforms to Australian universities: Views from theacademic heartland. Paper presented at the 2nd International Critical Management StudiesConference, University of Manchester and UMIST, Manchester, UK.
Wolverton, M., Gmelch, W.H., Wolverton, M.L., & Sarros, J.C. (1999). Stress in academicleadership: U.S. and Australian department chairs/heads. The Review of Higher Education,22(2), 165–185.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
asm
ania
] at
22:
37 2
7 N
ovem
ber
2014
Recommended
