See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/227428984

University corporatisation: The effect on academic work-related

attitudes

Article in Accounting Auditing & Accountability Journal · May 2011

DOI: 10.1108/09513571111133045 · Source: RePEc

CITATIONS READS
56 661

3 authors:

Aleksandra Pop-Vasileva Kevin Baird

Monash University (Australia) Macquarie University
3 PUBLICATIONS 77 CITATIONS 89 PUBLICATIONS 3,060 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Bill T Blair
Macquarie University
10 PUBLICATIONS 360 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Kevin Baird on 15 February 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0951-3574.htm

AAAJ
24,4 University corporatisation
The effect on academic work-related attitudes
Aleksandra Pop-Vasileva, Kevin Baird and Bill Blair
408 Macquarie University, New South Wales, Australia

Received November 2009

Revised 4 June 2010 Abstract
Accepted 12 August 2010 Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine the work-related attitudes ( job satisfaction, job
stress and the propensity to remain) of Australian academics and their association with organisational,
institutional and demographic factors.
Design/methodology/approach – Data were collected by distributing a survey questionnaire to
750 academics, from 37 Australian universities.
Findings – The results indicate a moderately low level of job satisfaction, moderately high level of
job stress, and high propensity to remain. The findings reveal that the organisational factors
(management style, perceived organisational support, and the characteristics of the performance
management system) exhibited the most significant association with academic work-related attitudes,
with the only significant institutional factor, the declining ability of students, negatively impacting on
job satisfaction and job stress. The findings revealed that work-related attitudes differ, based on
discipline, with science academics found to be more stressed and less satisfied than accounting
academics. Different organisational and institutional factors were associated with the work-related
attitudes of academics from these two disciplines.
Practical implications – The findings will make university management aware of the work-related
attitudes of staff, and the factors that are associated with such attitudes, thereby assisting
management in developing management policies, and taking appropriate action to address the
concerns of staff.
Originality/value – The study provides an initial comparison of the work-related attitudes ( job
satisfaction, job stress, and propensity to remain) of Australian academics across the accounting and
science disciplines. The study also provides an important insight into the association between specific
organisational and institutional factors, with the work-related attitudes of Australian academics
across both disciplines.
Keywords Job satisfaction, Stress, Performance management systems, Academic staff, Retention,
Australia
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
Numerous studies have emerged reporting a transformation in the higher education
sector concurrent with new commercially oriented tendencies evident in public sector
management (Anderson, 2006; MacGregor et al., 2006; Korunka et al., 2003; Anderson
et al., 2002; Neumann and Guthrie, 2002; NTEU, 2000; Coaldrake and Stedman, 1999;
McInnis, 1999; Parker et al., 1998; Taylor et al., 1998; Hood, 1995; NBEET, 1991). This
process of transformation, known in the literature as the New Public Management
Accounting, Auditing & (NPM), has been imported into the public sector from the private sector and is
Accountability Journal characterised by policy development and management geared towards efficiency and
Vol. 24 No. 4, 2011
pp. 408-439 effectiveness, quality assurance, implementation of performance evaluations
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0951-3574
consisting of explicit targets, outputs and outcomes, and a focus on cost savings
DOI 10.1108/09513571111133045 (Anderson, 2006; Parker and Gould, 1999).
 The transformations were initiated by significant cuts in government funding for University
universities as a part of the Dawkins[1] reforms in 1987 (MacGregor et al., 2006; corporatisation
Duckett, 2004; Winter et al., 2000; Coaldrake and Stedman, 1999; Marginson, 1997;
Meek and Wood, 1997; Moses, 1996). The cuts in funding compelled universities to turn
towards different sources of financing resulting in the adoption of a more commercial
and entrepreneurial approach to university management (DEST, 2003; Winter et al.,
2000; Marginson, 1997; Meek and Wood, 1997). In particular, there has been a 409
substantial increase in full-fee paying students as a new means of financial support for
universities while there has also been a tendency to open campuses in offshore
locations and in major Australian capital cities (Carrington et al., 2007; Duckett, 2004;
Devos, 2003; Anderson et al., 2002; Saravanamuthu and Tinker, 2002; Meek and Wood,
1997). Accordingly, universities have opened their doors to a more diverse student
body, differing in age, gender, educational background, and academic ability, with a
substantial increase in the number of international students (DEETYA, 2007; Devos,
2003; DEST, 2003; Anderson et al., 2002; Neumann and Guthrie, 2002; NTEU, 2000;
Meek and Wood, 1997).
These changes have resulted in higher student/staff ratios and greater teaching
requirements and pressures (Parker, 2002). Additional pressure has been placed on
universities to perform in order to receive the reduced government funding available.
Specifically, since 1993 Quality Reviews have been conducted with government
funding tied to teaching and research output, forcing universities to become
increasingly competitive to obtain these resources (Mollis and Marginson, 2002; Taylor
et al., 1998; Moses, 1996). In particular, pressure has been placed on the research
production side of academic work exemplified in the phrase “publish or perish” ( James,
2008; Anderson et al., 2002; Gillespie et al., 2001; Taylor et al., 1998). Consequently, as a
result of the corporatisation of universities, academics have felt overworked,
pressured, demoralised and frustrated (Anderson, 2006; Anderson et al., 2002; NTEU,
2000; McInnis, 1999). There has been considerable evidence in the literature of
increased levels of stress in academic work, declining levels of job satisfaction and
concerns about the propensity of academic staff to remain in their current employment
(hereafter propensity to remain) (McClenahan et al., 2007; Houston et al., 2006; Noblet
et al., 2006; Bellamy et al., 2003; Winefield et al., 2003; Anderson et al., 2002; Gillespie
et al., 2001; NTEU, 2000; McInnis, 1999).
This study attempts to provide an insight into the current academic working
environment by examining the level of job satisfaction, job stress and the propensity of
academics at 37 Australian universities[2] to remain in their current employment. The
assessment of these work-related attitudes is seen as important “because of their
intrinsic desirability to the individual employee (in the case of job satisfaction, for
example) and because of their linkage to behavioural consequences desirable at an
organisational level” (McKinnon et al., 2003, p. 26). In particular work-related attitudes
are associated with behavioural consequences such as changes in the level and quality
of performance, absenteeism and employee turnover rates (Schermerhorn et al., 2008).
The study also examines the association between three organisational factors
(management style, performance management systems and perceived organisational
support) and six institutional[3] factors (increasing student/staff ratios, declining
academic ability of students, increased proportion of non-English speaking
background students, poorly motivated students, poor preparation by students for
AAAJ classes, and minimal class participation of students) with the levels of job satisfaction,
job stress, and the propensity to remain.
24,4 Additionally, the study aims to assess the association between specific
demographic factors (gender, age, qualification, academic position, discipline) with
the work-related attitudes of Australian academics. The examination of these
associations is exploratory and no formal hypotheses are developed. The findings will
410 assist organisations by making them aware of the manner in which work-related
attitudes differ based on the specific demographic characteristics of academics.
Furthermore, the study will conduct an analysis of the association between
organisational and institutional factors with work-related attitudes for academics with
differing demographic characteristics.
In summary the three objectives of the study are to examine:
(1) the work-related attitudes of Australian academics;
(2) the association between organisational and institutional factors, and
work-related attitudes; and
(3) the influence of demographic factors on work-related attitudes.
The study will assist the management of university staff by providing an insight into
the factors that influence the work-related attitudes of staff. It is intended that the
findings will lead to improvements in management policies regarding the working
conditions of academic staff by highlighting the areas in which university
management need to take appropriate action to address the concerns of staff. It is
essential that university management endeavors to take necessary actions to improve
the work-related attitudes of academic staff, given evidence of the strong association
between work-related attitudes and productivity, absenteeism, turnover rates and the
morale of staff (Schermerhorn et al., 2008).
The paper is organised as follows. Section 2 reviews the literature on work-related
attitudes and discusses the association between specific organisational and
institutional factors with work-related attitudes. Section 3 then discusses the method
used for data collection. Section 4 provides the results of the data analysis and section 5
then provides a discussion of the results and the limitations and suggestions for future
research.

2. Factors affecting the work-related attitudes of academics

Transformations in the academic environment have placed increased pressures on
academics with growing concerns about the increased stress associated with academic
work, decreases in job satisfaction, and an overall unfavourable outlook of academics
towards their jobs (Anderson, 2006; Anderson et al., 2002; Allport, 2000; NTEU, 2000).
A number of studies have emerged reporting increased levels of employee stress,
dissatisfaction and declining levels of organisational commitment within the last two
decades due to the commercialisation of the public sector (Mikkelsen et al., 2005; Noblet
et al., 2006; Korunka et al., 2003; Gillespie et al., 2001). The following subsections
outline the association between job satisfaction, job stress and the propensity to remain
with specific organisational (management style, perceived organisational support,
performance management system) and institutional factors (increasing student/staff
ratios; declining academic ability of students; increasing proportion of non-English
speaking students; and the poor preparation, participation and motivation of students).
2.1 Management style University
Australian universities have been affected by the push for structural reforms in the corporatisation
public sector similar to those reported in the UK, Europe, and the USA (Frolich, 2005;
Mikkelsen et al., 2005; Korunka et al., 2003; Bottery, 1996; Hood, 1995). According to
Hood (1995), the spirit of the reforms has been evident in respect to the corporatisation
of the public sector and greater emphasis on the adoption of private sector styles of
management practice. Specifically, these reforms have resulted in increased emphasis 411
being placed on efficiency, effectiveness, accountability, the adoption of formal and
explicit measurable standards, and greater emphasis on output controls (Hood, 1995).
These reforms have resulted in a change in the management style in academia towards
a more commercial like managerialist approach, termed New Public Management
(Watty et al., 2008; Houston et al., 2006; Bellamy et al., 2003; Anderson et al., 2002;
Patience, 1999; Moses, 1996).
Stiles (2004) distinguished between three styles of management (separatist,
integrationist and hegemonist) in a university setting, termed academic identities. The
separatist academic identity (low-managerialist) is viewed as cohesive and collegial,
with strategic goals centred on promoting common values such as acquisition of
knowledge for its own sake, basic peer-reviewed and disciplinary theory founded upon
experience, reason and scientific universality, freedom of expression and working with
colleagues. In contrast, the hegemonist academic identity (high managerialist) is
dependent and subservient, where dominating values emphasise administrative
effectiveness, career advancement, financial reward and customer orientation. Stiles
(2004) identifies the characteristics of the hegemonist academic identity as closely
linked to the NPM approach. The third, integrationist type of academic identity adopts
different characteristics from the two extremes and is seen as more “contextually
integrated and conflictual” since traditional values of collegiality and autonomy are not
so widely shared (Stiles, 2004, p. 161).
While the separatist approach is supportive of traditional academic values, the
hegemonist approach is guided by rational economic values, such as efficiency and
effectiveness, and customer orientation (Stiles, 2004). The change of university
management to this more corporate style is seen as a direct threat to academic freedom
(Taylor et al., 1998). According to Taylor et al. (1998), in an environment dominated by
the ideas of accountability and productivity (characteristics of the NPM approach),
academic freedom is a contradictory concept, which has become a totemic symbol of
academics’ resistance against managerialism. Moses (1996, p. 14) claims that the highly
managerialist style means that “academics experience impingement on their autonomy
and creative space through performance reviews, student evaluations, accreditation,
. . . and pressure to publish, plan, predict, and perform according to negotiated
standards”. Similarly, Simmons (2002, p. 91) sees this managerialist approach in
academia as “unwarranted, unworkable and unacceptable . . . an infringement of
academic freedom and an impediment to creativity and self-development”.
Hence, the NPM (high-managerialist) approach appears to restrict the flexibility and
autonomy of academics, which according to Bellamy et al. (2003) are the most
important reasons for becoming an academic. Accordingly, it is argued that the level of
job satisfaction and the propensity to remain will be lower, while the level of job stress
will be higher amongst academics subjected to a more hegemonist management style.
Given that managerial styles vary at different hierarchical levels, this study will
AAAJ examine the influence of management style at both the departmental and institutional
24,4 levels.
H1a. Academics whose departmental management exhibits a more hegemonist
approach will experience lower job satisfaction, have a lower propensity to
remain and experience higher job stress.
412 H1b. Academics whose institutional management exhibits a more hegemonist
approach will experience lower job satisfaction, have a lower propensity to
remain and experience higher job stress.

2.2 Perceived organisational support

Perceived organisational support refers to the degree to which employees perceive their
employer to be concerned with their wellbeing and to value their contributions to the
organisation (Eisenberger et al., 1986). Previous findings have indicated that
employees with highly-perceived organisational support report higher job satisfaction
(Harris et al., 2007; Muse and Stamper, 2007; Allen et al., 2003). Similarly, Rhoades and
Eisenberger (2002, p. 710) found that “employees with high perceived organisational
support generally find their job more pleasurable, are in a better mood at work, and
suffer fewer strain symptoms such as fatigue, burnout, anxiety, and headaches”.
Hence, employees who receive higher levels of perceived organisational support will
experience greater job satisfaction and less stress than those who experience lower
levels of perceived organisational support (Stamper and Johlke, 2003).
Perceived organisational support has also been linked with lower levels of employee
turnover (Maertz et al., 2007; Allen et al., 2003; Stamper and Johlke, 2003) with
employees who perceive higher organisational support more likely to remain in their
employment. Therefore, it is expected that higher perceived organisational support
will lead to higher job satisfaction, a higher propensity to remain and lower job stress
(Stamper and Johlke, 2003).
H2. The level of perceived organisational support will be positively related to
the level of job satisfaction and propensity to remain and negatively related
to the level of job stress of academics.

2.3 Performance management system

The changes in academic management style have been accompanied by changes in
performance management systems (hereafter PMS) to emphasise corporate sector best
practice with an inherent expectation of measurable outputs, responsiveness to
stakeholders’ needs and greater accountability (Houston et al., 2006; Dunkin, 2003).
This study examines the effect of three dimensions of the PMS on work-related
attitudes: the effectiveness of the PMS, the link of performance to rewards, and the
pressure that the PMS places on academics.
An effective PMS is expected to serve the main purposes of determining training
and development needs, appraising past performance, aligning individual and
organisational objectives, developing individual competencies, career planning,
achieving salary increases and the assessment of future promotional prospects
(Nankervis and Compton, 2006). Furnham (2004) suggests that an effective PMS should
improve work performance, advise employees about work expectations, motivate
employees, identify training needs, assist employees in setting career goals and
improve working relationships. The extent to which the PMS realises these purposes University
will determine the level of satisfaction of the employees subjected to it (Nankervis and corporatisation
Compton, 2006; Fletcher and Williams, 1996). Similarly, Gillespie et al. (2001) indicated
that when academics find that performance evaluation is designed well, it helps to
alleviate stress by improving communication, planning and role clarity. According to
Huselid (1995), effective performance management has the potential to affect employee
motivation by encouraging them to work harder and smarter, as well as influencing 413
their propensity to remain by motivating them to stay in the organisation.
H3a. Academics subjected to a more effective PMS will exhibit higher job
satisfaction and propensity to remain and lower job stress.
The importance of providing rewards in an academic environment is highlighted by
Sizer et al. (1992) who propose that performance indicators, which are linked to
rewards, should be used by governments for stimulating educational institutions.
Similarly, Sutton and Brown (2008) emphasised the importance of incentives, such as
research project and conference funding, and promotion in motivating the research
performance of academics. Common approaches used to motivate employee effort and
improve job satisfaction include the linking of performance appraisals with incentive
compensation systems, the use of promotional systems that focus on employee merit,
and other forms of incentives that align employee and shareholder’s interests (Huselid,
1995). Several studies have confirmed the assertion that performance that is linked to a
form of reward will positively impact employee motivation (Helm, 2007; Rynes et al.,
2005; Lawler, 2003). In addition, Trevor et al. (1997) found that the presence of salary
growth or promotions resulted in lower turnover, while Gillespie et al. (2001) found that
the absence of rewards and recognition for academics’ work resulted in increased levels
of job stress.
H3b. Academics whose performance is linked to rewards to a greater extent will
exhibit higher job satisfaction and propensity to remain and lower job
stress.
There has been a rising concern about increased workloads and pressures in academia
(Houston et al., 2006; MacGregor et al., 2006; Noblet et al., 2006; Devos, 2003; Winter
et al., 2000; Coaldrake and Stedman, 1999; Marginson, 1997; Meek and Wood, 1997).
The changing demands of the academic job have been reflected in university, faculty
and departmental plans and performance indicators, and incorporated in PMSs. Some
examples of such indicators include student enrolment targets, the quality of teaching,
student satisfaction ratings, the number of publications and citations, research
rankings, the number of Higher Degree enrolments and completions, number of
research collaborations, and the number of research grants (Australian National
University, 2008; Deakin University, 2008; Melbourne University, 2008; Monash
University, 2007; Macquarie University, 2004). The intensified pressure for exceptional
performance in all areas of teaching, research and administration has resulted in
declining levels of employee satisfaction (Bellamy et al., 2003; Anderson et al., 2002;
NTEU, 2000; Coaldrake and Stedman, 1999), increased stress (Winefield et al., 2003;
Gillespie et al., 2001; Allport, 2000), and increased resignations and retirements
(Anderson et al., 2002).
AAAJ H3c. Academics experiencing increasing pressure to perform to a greater extent
24,4 will exhibit lower job satisfaction and propensity to remain and higher job
stress.

2.4 Institutional factors

Recent studies in the higher education sector have referred to the declining academic
414 ability of students and increasing student/staff ratios (Chubb, 2007; Anderson et al.,
2002; Taylor et al., 1998). In addition, McInnes and Hartley (2002) refer to an increasing
disengagement and lack of motivation of students who find it necessary to engage in
part-time or full-time employment to pay student tuition fees. Further, to ensure a
steady financial inflow, universities have been supportive of the increasing trend of
international student enrolments during the last two decades (DEST, 2003; Devos,
2003; Mollis and Marginson, 2002; Poole, 2001). This has resulted in a decline in
English proficiency and created an increasingly difficult working atmosphere for
academics (Devos, 2003). In particular, studies have implied that the poor English
ability of students has represented a difficulty for class participation and writing at a
higher academic level (DEST, 2003; Devos, 2003).
While an empirical examination of the association between such institutional
factors and work-related attitudes has not been previously conducted, many studies
have implied their negative effect on academics (Winefield et al., 2003; Anderson et al.,
2002; Gillespie et al., 2001; NTEU, 2000; Winter et al., 2000). Accordingly, it is
hypothesised that job satisfaction and propensity to remain will be lower where these
institutional factors are deteriorating to a greater extent, while the level of job stress
will be greater.
H4. There will be a negative association between deteriorating institutional
factors and the level of job satisfaction and propensity to remain and a
positive association with the level of job stress.

3. Method
A survey questionnaire was distributed to 750 accounting and science (including
natural and physical science) academics, from 37 Australian universities, identified
from relevant web sites. The majority of previous studies in Australia (Bellamy et al.,
2003; Winefield and Jarrett, 2001; Winter et al., 2000; Dua, 1994) or outside Australia
(McClenahan et al., 2007; Taris et al., 2001; Doyle and Hind, 1998) have only focused on
a single institution or discipline. While other studies have chosen a sample of up to 17
Australian universities (Winefield et al., 2003; Anderson et al., 2002; Gillespie et al.,
2001; NTEU, 2000), the present study utilises a larger sample of academics, thereby
providing a broader and more comprehensive coverage of the work-related attitudes of
academic staff. Accounting and science academics were chosen due to the implied
difference between these two disciplines in respect to the number and background of
students[4], research output and culture, and the qualifications of staff (Birrel and
Healy, 2008; DEST, 2008; Sinclair, 2004; DEST, 2003; Anderson et al., 1997; NBEET,
1991). In respect to research, Sinclair (2004) found that academics from the natural
sciences were more productive, with an average of 65.51 publications compared to
28.56 in the social science area, which encompasses the accounting discipline. Sinclair
(2004) also found that academics from the natural sciences were more collaborative and
were awarded a higher number of competitive grants compared to academics from the
social sciences (Sinclair, 2004). The study contributes to the existing literature by University
providing a comparison of the work-related attitudes of academics from the two corporatisation
disciplines. Specifically, the study examines the extent to which the work-related
attitudes of accounting and science academics differ and whether there are differences
in the factors that influence the work-related attitudes across the two disciplines.
A total of 333 responses were received for a response rate of 44.4 per cent. The initial
mail-out resulted in 264 returned questionnaires (35.2 per cent) with a further 69 (9.2 415
per cent) returned in the follow up mail-out. Non-response bias was assessed by
comparing demographics (gender, age, qualification, position, and discipline), and
independent and dependent values, between early and late respondents. No significant
differences were found in any of the comparisons, indicating the absence of
non-response bias.
Table I reveals that 59.2 per cent (40.8 per cent) of the respondents were male
(female). Only three respondents (0.9 per cent) were younger than 25 years, with 56 per
cent of the respondents aged 46 or more. The majority of the respondents (72.5 per cent)
held a PhD and 11.3 per cent of the respondents were Associate Lecturers, 29.3 per cent
Lecturers, 24.7 per cent Senior Lecturers, 19.2 per cent Associate Professors, and 15.5
per cent Professors[5]. Accounting academics comprised 48.3 per cent of the sample,
while 51.7 per cent were science academics, with Table I showing no significant
difference between the two disciplines in respect to gender and age of respondents.

Discipline
Overall % Accounting % Science %
Demographic characteristics n ¼ 333 n ¼ 158 n ¼ 169 Sig.

Gender
Male 59.2 54.4 63.1
Female 40.8 45.6 36.9 0.23
Age
Under 25 0.9 0
26-35 18.4 17.7 18.9
36-45 24.7 25.3 24.9
46-55 32.5 27.8 35.5
Over 55 23.5 27.2 20.7 0.22
Qualification
Undergraduate 2.7 0.04 0.01
Honours 6.1 12.0 0.01
Postgrad/Master’s 18.7 29.7 0.10
PhD 72.5 53.2 89.3 0.00
Academic position
Associate Lecturer 11.3 17.1 0.10
Lecturer 29.3 31.6 27.2
Senior Lecturer 24.7 19.6 28.4
Associate Professor 19.2 15.2 21.9
Professor 15.5 15.2 15.9 0.04 Table I.
Demographic
Notes: The number of responses (n) varies slightly owing to the fact that not all demographic items characteristics of
were completed by the respondents respondents
AAAJ However, Table I shows significant differences amongst accounting and science
24,4 academics in respect to academic position, with a greater proportion of junior (senior)
academics in accounting (science), and a higher proportion of science academics having
PhD degrees.

3.1 Variable measurement

416 A five-point Likert scale was used for all variables, with anchors of “Strongly
Disagree” and “Strongly Agree” unless otherwise stated. The study adopts an adapted
version of Spector’s (1985) Job Satisfaction Survey incorporating one item to represent
each of its nine dimensions (pay, promotion, supervision, fringe benefits, contingent
rewards, operating conditions, co-workers, the nature of the work, and
communication). Respondents were required to indicate the extent to which they
agreed with the provided statements (see Appendix). Job satisfaction was scored as the
sum of the nine items, ranging from 9 to 45 with higher (lower) scores indicating higher
(lower) levels of job satisfaction.
The study utilised an adapted version of the Job Stress Survey (Spielberger and
Reheiser, 1995) using the 16 items from the scale, which measured Job Pressures (see
Appendix). The statements were utilised to emphasise the frequency of occurrence of
the stressful aspects of a job based on the assumption that a high frequency would
result in higher stress levels in the job. Respondents were required to indicate the
extent to which they agreed with each statement. Job stress was scored as the sum of
the 16 items, ranging from 16 to 80 with higher (lower) scores indicating higher (lower)
levels of job stress.
Propensity to remain was measured based on the single statement provided by
Ketchland and Strawser (1998): “It is highly likely that I will actively seek employment
at another organisation within the next year”. Given the study makes a distinction
between an academic leaving their particular institution and leaving the overall
industry, respondents were required to consider two separate statements, “It is highly
likely that I will seek employment at another university within the next year” and “It is
highly likely that I will seek employment at an organisation other than a university
within the next year”. Consequently, for the purpose of the data analysis, propensity to
remain was treated as two separate variables, specifically, the propensity to remain in
the institution and the propensity to remain in academia.
A self-developed measure was constructed for the management style using two
opposing statements, which defined the basic characteristics of the separatist
(low-managerialist) and hegemonist (high-managerialist) academic identities (see
Appendix). The statements were developed based on the descriptions provided by
Stiles (2004). The respondents were asked to rank the management style of their
department/school and their institution with anchors ranging from 1 ¼
hegemonistto5 ¼ separatist:
Perceived organisational support was measured using the six-item version of the
original measure developed by Eisenberger et al. (2001), with respondents required to
indicate the extent to which they agreed with the six statements. Perceived
organisational support was measured as the sum of the six items, ranging from 6 to 30
with higher (lower) scores indicating higher (lower) perceived organisational support.
The three dimensions of the PMS were measured using self-developed measures
based on the appropriate PMS literature. For instance, the measure utilised for the
effectiveness of the PMS was developed based on a review of the literature relating to University
features of an effective performance management system (Nankervis and Compton, corporatisation
2006; Furnham, 2004; Lawler, 2003; Lonsdale, 1998; Fletcher and Williams, 1996).
Respondents were required to indicate the extent to which they agreed that the PMS
they were subject to was effective in achieving the six identified outcomes (see
Appendix, a-f). In addition, respondents were required to indicate the extent to which
their institutional PMS focused on six specific characteristics (see Appendix, g-l) with 417
anchors of “Not at all” and “To a great extent”. The effectiveness of the PMS was
scored as the sum of the twelve items, ranging from 12 to 60 with higher (lower) scores
indicating greater (lower) effectiveness.
Prior literature on performance and rewards (Helm, 2007; Rynes et al., 2005; Lawler,
2003; Tietjen and Myers, 1998; Huselid, 1995) was used to develop two questions to
examine whether the performance management system provided a link between
performance evaluation and rewards. Specifically, respondents were asked to indicate
the extent to which they believed that performance evaluations were linked to financial
rewards (e.g. pay or bonuses) and non-financial rewards (e.g. recognition or awards for
teaching or research), with anchors of “Not at all” and “To a great extent”.
With respect to the third dimension of the PMS, the literature review of the various
types of pressures placed on academics (Anderson et al., 2002; Gillespie et al., 2001;
Allport, 2000; Coaldrake and Stedman, 1999) resulted in respondents being asked to
indicate the extent to which they agreed that their performance management system
was placing increasing pressure on administration, teaching, research activities and
the quality of teaching.
Finally, a self-developed measure was used to examine the institutional factors, and
was constructed based on a review of the prior literature on academic working
environments (Kinman and Jones, 2003; Anderson et al., 2002; Gillespie et al., 2001).
Respondents were required to indicate the extent to which they believed that the six
characteristics provided (see Appendix) applied to their institutions, with anchors of
“Not at all” and “To a great extent”. Each of the six items were analysed separately in
the data analysis section.

4. Results
Table II shows descriptive statistics for the independent and dependent variables. For
the multi-item scales the actual range was comparable with the theoretical range and
the Cronbach Alpha coefficients exceeded the 0.7 threshold generally considered
acceptable for scale reliability (Nunnally, 1978). The mean value of the department
management style was close to the middle of the scale (2.77) suggesting an
integrationist management style, while the mean score of the institution management
style was well below the middle of the scale indicating a tendency towards a more
hegemonist management style.
The mean score of the effectiveness of the Performance Management System (PMS)
is slightly below the middle of the range, which indicates that on average the
respondents believe that the PMS within their institution does not possess the
characteristics of an effective PMS. In respect to the link of performance to financial
rewards the mean (2.29) lies on the lower end of the scale, which indicates that
performance is not linked to financial rewards to a great extent while the mean score
(2.95) of the link of performance to non-financial rewards is higher but also indicates a
 24,4

418
AAAJ

Table II.

dependent variables
the independent and
Descriptive statistics of
Minimum Maximum
Variables n Mean Std dev. Actual Theoretical Actual Theoretical Cronbach alpha

Organisational factors
Management style department 312 2.77 1.13 1 1 5 5 –
Management style institution 311 2.14 1.02 1 1 5 5 –
Effectiveness of the PMS 319 33.91 10.04 12 12 60 60 0.932
Link of performance to financial reward 312 2.29 1.33 1 1 5 5 –
Link of performance to non-financial reward 312 2.95 1.09 1 1 5 5 –
Increased pressure from the PMS 321 14.26 3.32 4 4 20 (20) 0.744
Perceived organisational support 331 16.82 5.49 6 6 30 30 0.897
Institutional factors
Increased student/staff ratios 322 3.94 1.11 1 1 5 5 –
Declining academic ability of students 322 3.91 1.64 1 1 5 5 –
Proportion of non-English background students 322 3.55 1.13 1 1 5 5 –
Poorly motivated students 322 3.59 1.11 1 1 5 5 –
Minimal participation of students in classes 322 3.46 1.12 1 1 5 5 –
Poor preparation by students for classes 322 3.77 1.07 1 1 5 5 –
Dependent variables
Job satisfaction 310 26.64 6.16 12 9 45 45 0.742
Job stress 309 51.14 9.52 23 16 72 80 0.832
Propensity to remain in the institution 313 2.39 1.39 1 1 5 5 –
Propensity to remain in academia 313 2.06 1.25 1 1 5 5 –
Note: The number of responses (n) varies owing to the fact that not all survey items were completed by the respondents
weak link between performance and non-financial rewards. Table II reveals that on University
average respondents feel that the PMS is placing increasing pressure on teaching, corporatisation
research, administration and the quality of teaching activities. It also shows that the
mean score of perceived organisational support was below the middle of the scale,
indicating that respondents believed they were experiencing a low level of
organisational support.
All six items from the institutional factors demonstrated a high mean score (the 419
lowest being 3.46). The results indicate that academics perceive that student/staff
ratios have increased (mean of 3.94), there is a decline in the academic ability of
students (mean of 3.90) and that students are generally demonstrating poor
preparation for classes (mean of 3.76), and poor motivation (mean of 3.59). The
respondents also indicated an increased proportion of non-English speaking
background students (mean of 3.54), and that there is poor class participation by
students (mean of 3.46).

4.1 The level of job satisfaction, job stress and the propensity to remain
Table II indicates that respondents demonstrate a moderately low level of job
satisfaction (with a mean score of 26.64, slightly below the middle of the range), with
56.8 per cent of the respondents scoring below the average value of job satisfaction.
Table III reveals that the areas of greatest dissatisfaction for academics were their
workloads (mean score of 2.17) and communication in the workplace (mean score of
2.57). Alternatively, the items that contributed to a higher level of satisfaction were the
nature of the work (mean score of 3.79), supervision (mean score of 3.43), and
relationships with co-workers (mean score of 3.22).
Table II reveals that the level of job stress was moderately high (mean score of 51.14
out of 80), with 61.5 per cent of the respondents scoring above the average value of job
stress. As Table IV shows the items that contributed the most to job stress were the
need for meeting deadlines (mean score of 4.17), frequent interruptions (mean score of
3.97), excessive paperwork (mean score of 3.91), and working excessive hours (mean
score of 3.80).
The level of propensity to remain in the institution was relatively high (mean value
of 2.39, slightly below the middle of the range) with 22.7 per cent of respondents
indicating that they will actively seek employment at another institution within the
following year, while the level of propensity to remain in academia was even higher
(mean value of 2.06, below the middle of the range) with only 15.7 per cent of

Minimum Maximum
Items n Mean Std dev. Actual Theoretical Actual Theoretical

Pay 315 2.88 1.24 1 1 5 5

Promotion 312 2.95 1.22 1 1 5 5
Supervision 314 3.43 1.35 1 1 5 5
Fringe benefits 314 2.85 1.23 1 1 5 5
Co-workers 315 3.22 1.22 1 1 5 5
Nature of work (purpose) 315 3.79 1.20 1 1 5 5 Table III.
Communication 315 2.57 1.12 1 1 5 5 Descriptive statistics of
Contingent rewards 315 2.76 1.12 1 1 5 5 the items measuring job
Workload 315 2.17 1.07 1 1 5 5 satisfaction
AAAJ
Std Minimum Maximum
24,4 Items n Mean dev. Actual Theoretical Actual Theoretical

Insufficient administrative staff 314 3.53 1.28 1 1 5 5

Frequent crisis situations 315 3.14 1.21 1 1 5 5
Frequent interruptions 315 3.97 0.96 1 1 5 5
420 Need for meeting deadlines 314 4.17 0.82 2 1 5 5
Excessive paper work 315 3.91 1.04 1 1 5 5
Frequent on-the-spot decisions 315 3.13 1.08 1 1 5 5
Competition for advancement 315 3.25 1.06 1 1 5 5
Noisy work area 315 2.12 1.14 1 1 5 5
New/unfamiliar duties 315 2.56 1.16 1 1 5 5
Increased responsibility 314 3.27 1.12 1 1 5 5
Covering work for others 314 3.09 1.11 1 1 5 5
Changes from boring to demanding
activities 315 2.95 1.17 1 1 5 5
Table IV. Times with no work to do 315 1.35 0.89 1 1 5 5
Descriptive statistics of Work excessive hours 315 3.80 1.16 1 1 5 5
the items measuring job Performing tasks not in job description 312 3.41 1.27 1 1 5 5
stress Insufficient personal time 314 3.44 1.29 1 1 5 5

respondents indicating that they will actively seek employment at an organisation

other than a university within the following year.

4.2 The association between organisational and institutional factors with work-related
attitudes
Hierarchical regression analysis was conducted to examine the relationship between
the group of organisational factors and the group of institutional factors with the
dependent variables (job satisfaction, job stress and the propensity to remain).
Accordingly, the seven variables (management style of the department, management
style of the institution, effectiveness of the PMS, link of performance to financial
rewards, link of performance to non-financial rewards, pressure from the PMS, and
perceived organisational support) used to measure the three organisational factors
(management style, PMS, and perceived organisational support) were all treated as one
block. Similarly, the six institutional factors (increasing student/staff ratios, declining
academic ability of students, increased proportion of non-English speaking
background students, poorly motivated students, minimal class participation of
students and poor preparation of students) were treated as another block in the
analysis.
Table V reveals that when the block of organisational factors was entered first and
the block of institutional factors was entered second, the organisational factors
explained 0.57 ð p ¼ 0:00Þ of the total variation in the level of job satisfaction, 0.19
ð p ¼ 0:00Þ of the total variation in the level of job stress, 0.21 ð p ¼ 0:00Þ of the total
variation in the level of propensity to remain in the institution, and 0.19 ð p ¼ 0:00Þ of
the total variation in the level of propensity to remain in academia. After considering
the association between the organisational factors and the dependent variables, the
unique contribution of the institutional factors was small and only significant in
respect to the level of job stress ð0:09; p ¼ 0:00Þ:
 Propensity to remain Propensity to remain
Job satisfaction Job stress in institution in academia
Block R2 F R2 F R2 F R2 F
number Independent variables change change Sig. change change Sig. change change Sig. change change Sig.

1 Organisational factors (Management

style department, management style
institution, PMS effectiveness, Link of
performance to financial reward, Link of
performance to non-financial reward,
PMS pressure, Perceived organisational
support) 0.57 52.99 0.00 0.19 9.87 0.00 0.21 11.02 0.00 0.19 9.62 0.00
2 Institutional factors (student/staff ratio,
students’ academic ability, proportion of
non-English speaking students,
Students’ participation, Students’
motivation, Students’ preparation) 0.02 1.76 0.11 0.09 5.90 0.00 0.02 1.04 0.39 0.01 0.85 0.54
F-value 29.808 8.595 6.420 5.556
p-value 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
R2 0.582 0.288 0.230 0.205
Adjusted
R2 0.563 0.255 0.194 0.168
n 291 289 293 293

factors/institutional

variables (organisational
corporatisation

organisational
University

factors entered first)

the four dependent
factors with the level of
Hierarchical regression of
Table V.
421
AAAJ Alternatively, when the institutional factors were entered first and the block of
24,4 organisational factors was entered second, Table VI reveals that both institutional and
organisational factors were significant determinants of the levels of each of the
dependent variables. Specifically, the institutional factors explained 0.17 ð p ¼ 0:00Þ of
the variation in the level of job satisfaction, 0.21 ð p ¼ 0:00Þ of the variation in the level
of job stress, 0.08 ð p ¼ 0:00Þ of the variation in the level of propensity to remain in the
422 institution and 0.05 ð p ¼ 0:01Þ of the variation in the level of propensity to remain in
academia. Hence, when the institutional factors are entered first, they are significantly
associated with all four work-related attitudes, although the effect is not as strong as
the organisational factors. The unique contribution of the organisational factors was
strong, explaining an additional 0.42 ð p ¼ 0:00Þ of the total variation in the level of job
satisfaction, 0.08 ð p ¼ 0:00Þ of the total variation in the level of job stress, 0.15
ð p ¼ 0:00Þ of the total variation in the level of propensity to remain in the institution
and 0.15 ð p ¼ 0:00Þ of the total variation in the level of propensity to remain in
academia.
Stepwise regression using backward deletion was then used to identify the specific
organisational and institutional factors influencing work-related attitudes. The results
are shown in Table VII. In respect to job satisfaction, the results reveal that the overall
model was statistically significant ðF ¼ 76:31; p ¼ 0:00Þ with 56.9 per cent of the
variance in the level of job satisfaction explained by organisational and institutional
factors. Three of the organisational factors were significantly and positively related to
the level of job satisfaction (the effectiveness of the PMS with p ¼ 0:00; the link of
performance to financial rewards with p ¼ 0:04; and perceived organisational support
with p ¼ 0:00Þ and one was significantly and negatively related (the increased
pressure from the PMS with p ¼ 0:03Þ: One institutional factor (declining academic
ability of students with p ¼ 0:00Þ was also significantly and negatively associated
with the level of job satisfaction. The results from the stepwise regression analysis
provide support for H2 and H3a, H3b, H3c, and partial support for H4 in respect to job
satisfaction.
With regard to job stress, the overall model was statistically significant (F ¼ 24.73,
p ¼ 0.00) with an R 2 value of 0.256 indicating that 25.6 per cent of the variance in the
level of job stress was explained by the organisational and institutional factors. Two
organisational factors (effectiveness of the PMS with p ¼ 0:00 and the link of
performance to financial reward with p ¼ 0:01Þ were significantly and negatively
related to the level of job stress, while one organisational (the increased pressure from
the PMS with p ¼ 0:00Þ and one institutional factor (declining academic ability of
students with p ¼ 0:00Þ were significantly and positively related to the level of job
stress of academics. These findings provide support for hypotheses H3a, H3b, H3c and
partial support for H4, in respect to job stress.
Table VII also reveals that the overall models for both the propensity to remain in
the institution ðF ¼ 25:64p ¼ 0:00Þ and in academia ðF ¼ 30:23; p ¼ 0:00Þ were
statistically significant with R 2 values of 0.207 and 0.169 respectively. The results
indicate that three of the organisational factors (management style of the department
with p ¼ 0:00; the effectiveness of the PMS with p ¼ 0:04; and perceived
organisational support with p ¼ 0:00Þ were significantly and negatively related to
the level of propensity to remain in the institution, with academics more likely to
actively seek employment at another institution if their departmental management
 Propensity to remain Propensity to remain
Job satisfaction Job stress in institution in academia
Block R2 F R2 F R2 F R2 F
number Independent variables change change Sig. change change Sig. change change Sig. change change Sig.

1 Institutional factors (student/staff ratio,

students’ academic ability, proportion of
non-English speaking students,
Students’ participation, Students’
motivation, Students’ preparation) 0.17 9.51 0.00 0.21 12.27 0.00 0.08 4.38 0.00 0.05 2.75 0.01
2 Organisational factors (Management
style department, management style
institution, PMS effectiveness, Link of
performance to financial reward, Link of
performance to non-financial reward,
PMS pressure, Perceived organisational
support) 0.42 39.50 0.00 0.08 4.53 0.00 0.15 7.57 0.00 0.15 7.58 0.00
F- value 29.808 8.595 6.420 5.556
p-value 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
R2 0.582 0.288 0.230 0.205
Adjusted
R2 0.563 0.255 0.194 0.168
n 291 289 293 293

factors/organisational
corporatisation
University

variables (institutional
institutional

factors entered first)

the four dependent
factors with the level of
Hierarchical regression of
423

Table VI.
 24,4

424
AAAJ

Table VII.
Results of stepwise

effect of organisational
and institutional factors
on work-related attitudes
regression analysis of the
Propensity to remain Propensity to remain
Job satisfaction Job stress in institution in academia
Variables Coef. T-stat Sig. Coef. T-stat Sig. Coef. T-stat Sig. Coef. T-stat Sig.

Organisational factors
Management style department 2 0.18 2 3.34 0.00
Management style institution
Effectiveness of the PMS 0.18 3.43 0.00 20.20 23.68 0.00 2 0.14 2 2.03 0.04 2 0.16 22.25 0.03
Link of performance to financial reward 0.09 2.11 0.04 20.14 22.64 0.01
Link of performance to non-financial reward
Increased pressure from PMS 20.09 22.14 0.03 0.17 3.14 0.00
Perceived organisational support 0.52 9.85 0.00 2 0.25 2 3.46 0.00 2 0.29 24.06 0.00
Institutional factors
Increasing student/staff ratios
Declining academic ability of students 20.12 22.96 0.00 0.28 5.19 0.00
Proportion of non-English speaking background
students
Poorly motivated students
Minimal participation of students in classes
Poor preparation by students for classes
F-value 76.31 24.73 25.64 30.23
p-value 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
R2 0.569 0.256 0.207 0.169
Adjusted R 2 0.562 0.245 0.199 0.164
n 294 292 297 299
style is more hegemonist, the PMS less effective and if there is lower perceived University
organisational support. corporatisation
The results provide support for H1a, H2, and H3a, in respect to the propensity to
remain in the institution. Two organisational factors (perceived organisational support
with p ¼ 0.00 and the effectiveness of the PMS with p ¼ 0.03) were significantly and
negatively associated with the level of the propensity to remain in academia. These
findings provide support for hypotheses H2 and H3a in respect to the propensity to 425
remain in academia.

4.3 The association between demographic factors with work-related attitudes

An analysis of variance was conducted to examine the relationship between
work-related attitudes and the demographic factors (gender, age, qualification, position
and discipline). No significant association was found in respect to gender and
qualification and while the age of the respondents was significant in respect to job
stress, the post hoc tests did not confirm this result. Significant differences in
work-related attitudes were found in respect to academic position and discipline.
Academic position was only associated with the level of job satisfaction ð p ¼ 0:02Þ;
where more senior academics were found to be more satisfied. Table VIII reveals that
discipline was found to be significantly associated with both job satisfaction ( p ¼ 0.03)
and job stress ð p ¼ 0:00Þ with accounting academics more satisfied and less stressed
than their science colleagues. Further analysis of the individual items revealed that
accounting academics were more satisfied than science academics in relation to pay
ð p ¼ 0:02Þ and recognition ð p ¼ 0:01Þ: In relation to job stress science academics
indicated greater stress in 13 of the 17 items attributable to higher job stress. While the
difference in the propensity to remain was not significant, the means indicate that
academics from the science discipline were less likely to actively seek employment at
another institution or outside academia. Given these findings further analysis of the
divergences of the organisational and institutional factors across the two disciplines
was undertaken.
Table VIII reveals the results in respect to the variables found to differ across the
two disciplines. The findings reveal a more effective PMS, higher perceived
organisational support, greater link of performance to financial rewards and higher

Accounting Science
Std Std
Work-related attitudes n Mean dev. n Mean dev. F Sig.

Job satisfaction 144 27.64 6.33 162 25.78 5.91 3.60 0.03
Job stress 145 48.63 9.29 159 53.33 8.99 11.17 0.00
Propensity to remain in institution 144 2.38 1.37 164 2.41 1.43 0.15 0.86
Propensity to remain in academia 144 1.96 1.22 164 2.16 1.28 1.10 0.33
Significant independent variables Table VIII.
Management style - institution 143 2.39 0.99 163 1.92 1.01 8.49 0.00 Results of the one way
Effectiveness of the PMS 152 35.74 9.98 162 32.16 9.55 5.34 0.05 analysis of variance
Proportion of non-English background (ANOVA) comparing the
students 153 3.86 1.11 164 3.27 1.12 11.79 0.00 dependent and
Link of performance to financial reward 144 2.69 1.37 163 1.94 1.17 13.71 0.00 independent variables
Perceived organisational support 157 17.93 5.19 169 15.82 5.56 6.39 0.02 based on discipline
AAAJ proportion of non-English speaking background students in the accounting discipline,
24,4 and a more hegemonist management style in the science discipline. Given the observed
differences in work-related attitudes, and organisational and institutional factors, the
association between these factors for both the accounting and science disciplines is
further explored in section 4.4.

426 4.4 Analysis of the factors influencing the work-related attitudes of accounting and
science academics
A stepwise regression analysis was performed to determine the factors influencing the
work-related attitudes of accounting and science academics respectively. Table IX
reveals the different organisational and institutional factors that were associated with
the levels of job satisfaction, job stress and propensity to remain across the two
disciplines, accounting and science.
The results reveal that the level of job satisfaction of both accounting and science
academics was significantly related to the level of perceived organisational support. In
addition, the level of job satisfaction of accounting academics was significantly
associated with the effectiveness of the PMS and the declining academic ability of
students.
The level of job stress of the accounting academics was significantly related to the
effectiveness of the PMS, the declining academic ability of students, and minimal class
participation. Alternatively, the level of job stress of science academics was
significantly associated with the pressure from the PMS, the link of performance to
financial rewards, the management style of the institution, minimal class participation,
and the poor motivation of students.
Table IX reveals that perceived organisational support was strongly associated
with the propensity to remain in the institution and the propensity to remain in
academia for both disciplines. In addition, the effectiveness of the PMS was

Propensity to Propensity to
remain in remain in
Job satisfaction Job stress institution academia

Discipline
Accounting PMS effectiveness PMS effectiveness PMS effectiveness Perceived
Perceived Declining academic Perceived organisational
organisational ability (students) organisational support
support Minimal class support
Declining academic participation
ability (students)
Science Perceived Management style- Management style Perceived
organisational institution – department organisational
support Link of performance to Perceived support
financial reward organisational
Table IX. PMS pressure support
Summary of the factors Poorly motivated Increasing student/
associated with students staff ratios
work-related attitudes Minimal class Proportion non-
(discipline) participation English
significantly related to the propensity to remain in the institution for accounting University
academics. The level of propensity to remain in the institution of science academics corporatisation
was significantly associated with the departmental management style, increasing
student/staff ratios, and an increasing proportion of non-English speaking background
students. These results indicate that science academics are less likely to remain in their
current institution if their departmental management exhibits a more hegemonist style,
student/staff ratios are increasing and if there is an increasing proportion of students 427
from non-English speaking backgrounds.

5. Conclusions and implications

The first objective of the study was to examine the level of job satisfaction, job stress
and the propensity to remain of Australian academics. The results revealed that the
level of job satisfaction was moderately low, with workloads and the level of
communication in the workplace causing the most dissatisfaction. The findings in
respect to workloads are consistent with Anderson (2006), Anderson et al. (2002) and
NTEU (2000) who reported that increased workloads in respect to teaching, research
and administration had an adverse effect on the satisfaction of academic staff. It is
recommended that university management should provide a more reasonable and
balanced academic workload, which would motivate academics but not overburden
them. Academics’ dissatisfaction with the level of communication can be attributed to
the adoption of a more hegemonistic management style within universities. In
particular, as asserted by Parker (2002, p. 606) communications “tend increasingly to
flow top-down within the university hierarchy, as decisions are increasingly
formulated at top management levels and then passed down for comment or
implementation to the ’line’ academics”. It is suggested that the various levels of
management within the university should develop two-way communication channels
which value academic inputs into addressing institutional challenges.
The level of job stress was moderately high with academics indicating that the
frequent need to meet deadlines, frequent interruptions, excessive paperwork and work
hours were the main drivers of the high stress levels. Given these factors are all linked
to high academic workloads provides further support for the importance of university
management in addressing excessive workload concerns. While the organisational
behaviour literature suggests that excessive workloads can have a negative impact on
turnover rates (Schermerhorn et al., 2008) the propensity of academics to remain in
their current employment was relatively high and even higher in regards to remaining
in academia overall. These results indicate that in spite of the declining satisfaction
and the increased stress levels, academics are still likely to remain in their academic
employment. This finding is consistent with Bellamy et al. (2003), Anderson et al.
(2002), NTEU (2000) and McInnis (1999). A possible explanation for this finding is that
the academic job is seen more as a calling rather than an ordinary job and academics
feel attached to the feeling of providing a form of community service. The fact that the
nature of the work was the item that contributed the most to job satisfaction supports
this claim.
The high propensity to remain may also be attributable to the difficulty or
reluctance of academics to relocate to other institutions. Specifically, academics could
find it more difficult to move to another institution or into another industry for several
reasons. First, in respect to moving to another institution, academics have a limited
AAAJ number of Australian employers to choose from (37 other universities), with the
24,4 selection pool becoming even narrower if they are not willing to move interstate.
Furthermore, in respect to leaving academia and moving to another industry,
additional analysis revealed that older academics and those who had worked in their
current department/school for longer had a higher propensity to remain in their current
employment. With more than half (56 per cent) of the respondents being from the
428 higher age groups (above 45), the findings indicate that the majority of academics may
consider a career change a difficult step to make. Finally, academics may be unwilling
to forgo the generous superannuation benefits that are associated with working in the
tertiary education industry.
The fact that 15.7 per cent of staff indicated a willingness to seek employment
outside academia poses a major concern for university management given the
significant time needed to develop an academic career. University management cannot
assume that the continuing deterioration of autonomy and flexibility in the work
environment, frequently identified (Bellamy et al., 2003; Anderson et al., 2002; NTEU,
2000; McInnis, 1999) as the most valued intrinsic rewards associated with academia,
will not have a more drastic affect on the propensity to remain in years to come. In
addition this could pose a threat in respect to the recruitment of new staff that may
choose to work in industry instead.
The second objective of the study was to examine the influence of organisational
and institutional factors on work-related attitudes. The results reveal that all three
organisational factors (management style, performance management systems and
perceived organisational support) and one institutional factor (declining academic
ability of students) had a significant effect on work-related attitudes. In respect to
PMSs, three dimensions were significantly associated with work-related attitudes, with
the most important factor being the effectiveness of the PMS, which was related to all
three work-related attitudes. This finding highlights the importance for universities to
design performance management systems that are effective in strengthening
accountability, promoting improved performance, improving communication,
providing an accurate assessment of performance and useful feedback to
individuals, determining training and development needs, and enhancing
motivation. It is suggested that management should consult with their employees as
they attempt to redesign their PMS to meet these objectives. Importantly the criteria
used to evaluate the performance of staff should consider academic values and not be
restrictive in the recognition of alternative forms of publications.
In addition to the effectiveness of the PMS, the study also found that the pressure
that the PMS places on academics and the extent to which the performance is linked to
financial rewards were associated with the level of job satisfaction and job stress.
Specifically, it was found that a PMS that places increased pressure on meeting
teaching, research and administration targets results in lower job satisfaction,
increased job stress levels and a lower propensity to remain. These findings indicate
that university management is placing increasing pressure on all aspects of academic
work with no recognition of the epistemological and sociological dimensions of
disciplines. In addition, university management’s expectation of achieving excellence
in research, teaching and administration fails to recognise that individual staff may
excel in a specific area and hence university resources may be more effectively
employed, by adopting a more flexible PMS. The findings in respect to the link of
performance to financial rewards indicate that university management needs to link University
academic performance evaluations to financial rewards (such as increased pay or corporatisation
bonuses) in order to ensure higher satisfaction and lower stress levels amongst
academics.
Perceived organisational support was associated with higher levels of job
satisfaction and a higher propensity to remain in the institution and in academia.
These results suggest that university managers need to demonstrate consideration and 429
support for academic staff if they wish to maximise their job satisfaction and increase
the likelihood that they will remain in their current employment. Accordingly,
university management needs to concentrate on recognizing staff contributions,
considering their goals and values, providing administrative and research assistance
when needed and generally demonstrating care for the wellbeing of academics.
While the third organisational factor – management style – was not associated
with the level of job satisfaction and job stress, it was found to be significantly
associated with the propensity of academics to remain in their institution. Importantly,
it was found that academics are more likely to leave their institution within the next 12
months when their management fosters a more hegemonist management style. This
finding is consistent with prior studies, which have emphasised the incongruence of
the highly managerial hegemonist style in the academic setting (Dunkin, 2003; Parker,
2002; Tierney, 2001; Meek and Wood, 1997; Taylor et al., 1998; Moses, 1996). This
management approach is considered to be an impingement on academic freedom and
autonomy and thereby unsuitable in the academic environment (Smeenk et al., 2006;
Moses, 1996). Accordingly, university managers need to appreciate the distinct nature
of the academic job and adopt a management style that considers its uniqueness.
University top management needs to enable more autonomy at the departmental level
so as to increase staff morale and allow a more balanced approach to workloads. In
other words, a more separatist departmental management style, which nurtures the
collegial nature of the academic job and does not restrict academic freedom, would be
more appropriate and more likely to prevent academics from leaving their institution.
With respect to the institutional factors, the declining academic ability of students
was the only factor found to be significantly associated with the work-related attitudes
(job satisfaction and job stress) of academics. Academics have traditionally considered
their jobs as geared towards production of knowledge for the sake of knowledge and
expect to receive an intrinsic reward from that process (Stiles, 2004; Bellamy et al.,
2003). Therefore, it is not surprising that they seem to be less satisfied when they
perceive a decline in the academic ability of students, which renders their job of
transferring knowledge considerably more difficult and diminishes their sense of
achievement. Hence, management needs to consider academic working conditions and
introduce processes that ensure adequate entry requirements instead of focusing on
increasing student numbers and “on generating revenue through teaching program
fees, research grants, contract consultancy and commercialisation of intellectual
capital” (Parker, 2005, p. 389). Failure to do so will result in rendering the academic job
of knowledge production and dissemination far more difficult, and consequently, will
contribute to the dissatisfaction and increased stress of academic staff. At the same
time, university management also needs to provide additional resources to students to
allow them to develop their generic skills and graduate capabilities so as to meet the
high standards required for academic progression.
AAAJ The third objective of this study was to examine the influence of demographic
24,4 factors on work-related attitudes. The results revealed that the work-related attitudes
of academics differed based on their discipline, with academics from the accounting
discipline more satisfied and less stressed than their colleagues from the science
discipline. Given this difference, an additional exploratory analysis of the association
between the organisational and institutional factors with work-related attitudes, was
430 conducted for academics from the two disciplines. The analysis indicated that
perceived organisational support was the only factor that influenced the job
satisfaction of both accounting and science academics. In addition, for accounting
academics, the effectiveness of the PMS was associated with a higher level of job
satisfaction, and the declining academic ability of students was associated with lower
levels of job satisfaction.
The analysis also indicated that the institutional factor, poorly motivated students,
was associated with the level of job stress for science academics. A possible
explanation here could be the fact that science faculties have lower entry requirements,
which could be associated with lower student motivation levels (UAC, 2008). The
extent to which performance is linked to financial rewards was another factor
influencing the level of job stress of science academics. Accordingly, university
management needs to implement incentive compensation schemes across all
disciplines in an equitable and transparent manner. The increased pressure from the
PMS, the hegemonist institutional management style and minimal participation by
students in classes were other factors that were associated with higher job stress for
science academics. These findings suggest that university management needs to
respond to the increased pressures placed on these academics and adopt a less
authoritative management approach.
With respect to accounting academics, the effectiveness of the PMS was associated
with lower levels of job stress, while the declining academic ability of students and
minimal participation by students in classes were associated with higher levels of job
stress. Therefore, university management and departmental managers need to ensure
that the PMS adequately addresses these concerns of staff. In addition the apparent
decline in the ability of students and their engagement in the learning process indicates
the need for universities to implement student academic support programs such as
peer assisted learning (Dobbie and Joyce, 2008).
Interestingly, the propensity to remain in their current employment was relatively
high and similar for the two groups of academics. In respect to the organisational
factors, higher perceived organisational support was associated with a higher
propensity to remain in the institution and in academia for both groups. The factors
associated with a lower propensity to remain for science academics were the
hegemonist management style, the higher proportion of non-English speaking
background students and the increasing student/staff ratios. These findings provide
university management with an insight into important factors that need to be
addressed in a proactive and constructive way in order to enhance the likelihood of
retaining staff in the accounting and science disciplines.
The study reveals that Australian academics are experiencing increasing levels of
job stress and declining job satisfaction with excessive workloads appearing to be the
major contributing factor. Despite these findings, the majority of the academics
indicated that they are likely to remain in their current employment. This may be
attributed to their dedication to their vocation or alternatively it may be reflective of an University
industry in which the workforce is ageing and reluctant to change jobs, and in which corporatisation
there is limited opportunity for job movement. Hence, while academics are committed
to their vocation, it is apparent that their job satisfaction and stress levels are being
detrimentally affected by their working conditions. Given that all three organisational
factors (management style, the PMS and perceived organisational support) were found
to be associated with work-related attitudes, it is imperative that university 431
management reassess their management policies so as to address these areas.
Specifically, management needs to: provide additional support to academics; ensure an
effective PMS is in place; link performance to financial rewards; alleviate the pressure
placed on teaching, research and administrative activities; and adopt a more separatist
management style at the departmental level. It is essential that university management
endeavour to take appropriate action to improve the work-related attitudes of staff
given the evidence of the strong association between work-related attitudes and
productivity and the morale of staff (Schermerhorn et al., 2008).

5.1 Limitations and suggestions for future research

The study is subject to the usual limitations of the survey methodology. In particular,
the study cannot determine causal relationships between variables with the results
considered solely as the association between variables. This study has also relied on
self-reported data with all of the variables gathered from the same sample of
respondents and is hence potentially subject to common method bias. Given that an
alternative method was not feasible at the time of the study, we rely on Crampton and
Wagner (1994) and Spector (1987) who argue that the problem of common method bias
is likely to be overstated when dealing with self-reported and perceptual data.
Nevertheless, future research could utilise alternative research methods to explore
these issues.
With respect to the sample, the study focuses on academics from two disciplines
(accounting and science), and hence, the results cannot be generalised to all Australian
academics. In addition, while the current study did not distinguish between the
“traditional” and more recently established universities, future studies could explore
work-related attitudes based on institutional characteristics.
Furthermore, in the absence of established measures of the effectiveness of the PMS,
the link of performance to rewards, and management styles, the study used
self-developed measures for these factors. Reliability tests were performed confirming
the reliability and unidimensionality of the measures. However, future research could
test the reliability of the self-developed measures in a similar and/or different setting.
Given the fact that this study analysed organisational and institutional factors,
future studies could analyse the impact of other factors on job satisfaction, job stress
and the propensity to remain. Future research could also extend this study by
performing a comparison across multiple disciplines by using a larger sample. A
longitudinal study, could also be considered as NPM, is increasingly adopted by
university management in Australian universities.

Notes
1. John Dawkins was the Minister for Employment, Education and Training (1987-1991) within
the Labor Government.
AAAJ 2. Although there are 38 universities in Australia, one university was not included in the
sample, as they did not clearly specify accounting academics, and they did not have a science
24,4 department.
3. Note that within this study the institutional factors encompass the university environment,
and the students within it.
4. A total of 77,645 (317,353) of students were enrolled in the Natural and Physical Sciences
432 (Management and Commerce) in 2008. Overseas students made up 16.5 per cent (48.3 per
cent) of the respective enrolments (DEST, 2008).
5. A non-proportional stratified sample was used so as to maintain representation across all
academic positions, consisting of 125 Professors, 135 Associate Professors, 190 Senior
Lecturers, 223 Lecturers, and 77 Associate Lecturers.

References
Allen, D.G., Shore, L.M. and Griffeth, R.W. (2003), “The role of perceived organisational support
and supportive human resource practices in the turnover process”, Journal of
Management, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 99-118.
Allport, C. (2000), “Thinking globally, acting locally: lifelong learning and the implications for
university staff”, Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, Vol. 22 No. 1,
pp. 37-46.
Anderson, D., Arthur, R. and Stokes, T. (1997), “Differences between fields of study”, Department
of Education, Science and Training, available at: www.dest.gov.au/sectors/higher_
education/publications_resources/profiles/archives/qualifications_of_australian_
academics.htm (accessed 11 October 2008).
Anderson, D., Johnson, R. and Saha, L. (2002), “Changes in academic work: implications for
universities of the changing age distribution and work roles of academic staff”,
Department of Education, Science and Training, available at: www.dest.gov.au/common_
topics/publications_resources/All_Publications_AtoZ.htm (accessed 5 May 2008).
Anderson, G. (2006), “Carving out time and space in the managerial university”, Journal of
Organisational Change, Vol. 19 No. 5, pp. 578-92.
Australian National University (2008), Education Plan, available at: http://info.anu.edu.au/OVC/
Executive/_Files/EducationPlan.pdf (accessed 10 October 2008).
Bellamy, S., Morley, C. and Watty, K. (2003), “Why business academics remain in Australian
universities despite deteriorating working conditions and reduced job satisfaction:
an intellectual puzzle”, Journal of Higher Educational Policy and Management, Vol. 25
No. 1, pp. 13-28.
Birrel, B. and Healy, E. (2008), “Migrant accountants – high numbers, poor outcomes”, People and
Place, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 9-22.
Bottery, M. (1996), “The challenge to professionals from the New Public Management:
implications for the teaching profession”, Oxford Review of Education, Vol. 22 No. 2,
pp. 179-97.
Carrington, R., Meek, L.V. and Wood, F.Q. (2007), “The role of further government intervention in
Australian international education”, Higher Education, Vol. 53, pp. 561-77.
Chubb, I. (2007), “Future shock. The view from the top”, Australian Universities Review, Vol. 49
No. 1&2, pp. 14-18.
Coaldrake, P. and Stedman, L. (1999), “Academic work in the twenty-first century. Changing
roles and policies”, No. 99H, Occasional Paper Series, Higher Education Division,
 Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs, September, available at: www.dest. University
gov.au/archive/highered/occpaper/99H/academic.pdf (accessed October 10, 2008).
corporatisation
Crampton, S. and Wagner, J. (1994), “Percept-percept inflation in micro-organizational research:
an investigation of prevalence and effect”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 79 No. 1,
pp. 67-76.
Deakin University (2008), Strategic Plan, available at: hwww.deakin.edu.au/vc/docs/
strategic-plan.pdf (accessed October 10, 2008) 433
Department of Education, Science and Training (DEST) (2003), National Report on Higher
Education in Australia 2001, Australian Government Department of Education, Science
and Training, available at: www.dest.gov.au/sectors/higher_education/publications_
resources/summaries_brochures/national_report_on_higher_education_in_australia_
2001_splitpdf.htm (accessed 5 October 2008).
Department of Education, Science and Training (DEST) (2008), “Students 2008 [full year]:
selected higher education statistics”, Australian Government Department of Education,
Science and Training, available at: www.dest.gov.au/sectors/higher_education/
publications_resources/profiles/Students/2008_full_year.htm (accessed 18 May 2010).
Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs (DEETYA) (2007), Higher
Education Report 2005, available at: www.dest.gov.au/NR/rdonlyres/5213D64C-C3BA-
4D8A-B139-7906281D27AD/16972/HigherEdReport2005FINAL.pdf (accessed October 11,
2008).
Devos, A. (2003), “Academic standards, internationalisation, and the discursive construction of
‘The international student’”, Higher Education Research & Development, Vol. 22 No. 2,
pp. 155-66.
Dobbie, M. and Joyce, S. (2008), “Peer-assisted learning in accounting: a qualitative assessment”,
Asian Social Science, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 18-25.
Doyle, C. and Hind, P. (1998), “Occupational stress, burnout and job status in female academics”,
Gender, Work and Organization, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 67-82.
Dua, J.K. (1994), “Job stressors and their effects on physical health, emotional health, and job
satisfaction in a university”, Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 59-78.
Duckett, S.J. (2004), “Turning right at crossroads. The Nelson report’s proposals to transform
Australia’s universities”, Higher Education, Vol. 47, pp. 211-40.
Dunkin, R. (2003), “Motivating knowledge workers: lessons to and from the corporate sector”,
Higher Education Management and Policy, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 41-9.
Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S. and Sowa, S. (1986), “Perceived organisational
support”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 71, pp. 500-7.
Eisenberger, R., Armeli, S., Rexwinkel, B., Lynch, P.D. and Rhoades, L. (2001), “Reciprocation of
perceived organisational support”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86, pp. 42-51.
Fletcher, C. and Williams, R. (1996), “Performance management, job satisfaction and
organisational commitment”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 7, pp. 169-79.
Frolich, N. (2005), “Implementation of New Public Management in Norwegian universities”,
European Journal of Education, Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 223-34.
Furnham, A. (2004), “Performance management systems”, European Business Journal, Vol. 16
No. 2, pp. 83-94.
Gillespie, N.A., Walsh, M., Winefield, A.H., Dua, J.K. and Stough, C. (2001), “Occupational stress
in universities: staff perceptions of causes, consequences and moderators of stress”, Work
& Stress, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 53-72.
AAAJ Harris, R.B., Harris, K.J. and Harvey, P. (2007), “A test of competing models of the relationships
among perceptions of organisational politics, perceived organisational support, and
24,4 individual outcomes”, The Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 147 No. 6, pp. 631-55.
Helm, C. (2007), “The performance management system: applying and evaluating a
pay-for-performance initiative”, Journal of Healthcare Management, Vol. 52 No. 1,
pp. 49-62.
434 Hood, C. (1995), “The ‘New Public Management’ in the 1980s: variations on a theme”, Accounting,
Organizations and Society, Vol. 20 Nos 2/3, pp. 93-109.
Houston, D., Meyer, L.H. and Paewai, S. (2006), “Academic staff workloads and job satisfaction:
expectations and values in academe”, Journal of Higher Education Policy and
Management, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 17-30.
Huselid, M.A. (1995), “The impact of human resource management practices on turnover,
productivity, and corporate financial performance”, Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 635-72.
James, K. (2008), “A critical theory perspective on the pressures, contradictions and dilemmas
faced by entry-level accounting academics”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 19
No. 8, pp. 1263-95.
Ketchland, A.A. and Strawser, J.R. (1998), “The existence of multiple measures of organisational
commitment and experience-related differences in a public accounting setting”, Behavioral
Research in Accounting, Vol. 10, pp. 109-37.
Kinman, G. and Jones, F. (2003), “Running up the down escalator: stressors and strains in UK
academics”, Quality in Higher Education, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 21-38.
Korunka, C., Scharitzer, D., Carayons, P. and Sainfort, F. (2003), “Employee strain and job
satisfaction related to an implementation of quality in a public service organization:
a longitudinal study”, Work & Stress, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 52-72.
Lawler, E.E. (2003), “Reward practices and performance management system effectiveness”,
Organisational Dynamics, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 396-404.
Lonsdale, A. (1998), “Performance appraisal, performance management and quality in higher
education: contradictions, issues and guiding principles for the future”, Australian Journal
of Education, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 303-20.
McClenahan, C.A., Giles, M.L. and Mallett, J. (2007), “The importance of context specificity in
work stress research: a test of the Demand-Control-Support model in academics”, Work
& Stress, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 85-95.
McInnis, C. (1999), The Work Roles of Academics in Australian Universities, 00/5 Evaluations and
Investigations Programme, Higher Education Division, June, Hawthorn,.
McInnis, C. and Hartley, R. (2002), Managing Study and Work. The Impact of Full-Time Study
and Paid Work on the Undergraduate Experience in Australian Universities, Department of
Education, Science and Training, Canberra, February.
McKinnon, J.L., Harrison, G.L., Chow, C.W. and Wu, A. (2003), “Organisational culture:
association with commitment, job satisfaction and propensity to remain, and information
sharing in Taiwan”, International Journal of Business Studies, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 25-44.
MacGregor, R., Rix, M., Aylward, D. and Glynn, J. (2006), “Factors associated with research
management in Australian Commerce and Business Faculties”, Journal of Higher
Education Policy and Management, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 59-70.
Macquarie University (2004), School of Economic and Financial Studies, Department of
Accounting and Finance, Strategic Plan, January.
Maertz, C.P., Griffeth, R.W., Campbell, N.S. and Allen, D.G. (2007), “The effects of perceived University
organisational support and perceived supervisor support on employee turnover”, Journal
of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 28, pp. 1059-75. corporatisation
Marginson, S. (1997), “Steering from a distance: power relations in Australian higher education”,
Higher Education, Vol. 34, pp. 63-80.
Meek, V.L. and Wood, F.Q. (1997), “The market as a new strategy for Australian higher
education”, Higher Education Journal, Vol. 10 Nos 3/4, pp. 253-74. 435
Melbourne University (2008), Learning and Teaching Plan, available at: www.provost.unimelb.
edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/93747/Learning_and_Teaching_Plan_2008_FINAL_
26Feb08v8.pdf (accessed October 10, 2008).
Mikkelsen, A., Ogard, T. and Landsbergis, P. (2005), “The effects of new dimensions of
psychological job demands and job control on active learning and occupational health”,
Work & Stress, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 153-75.
Mollis, M. and Marginson, S. (2002), “The assessment of universities in Argentina and Australia:
between autonomy and heteronomy”, Higher Education, Vol. 43, pp. 311-30.
Monash University (200), Monash Annual Report, available at: www.monash.edu.au/pubs/ar/
AnnualReport2007.pdf (accessed October 10, 2008).
Moses, I. (1996), “Tensions and tendencies in the management of quality and autonomy in
Australian higher education”, Australian Universities Review, Vol. 1, pp. 11-15.
Muse, L. and Stamper, C. (2007), “Perceived organisational support: evidence for a mediated
association with work performance”, Journal of Managerial Issues, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 517-35.
Nankervis, A.R. and Compton, R.L. (2006), “Performance management: theory in practice?”, Asia
Pacific Journal of Human Resources, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 83-101.
National Board of Employment, Education and Training, Higher Education Council (NBEET)
(1991), The Qualifications of Academic Staff: A Sample Study, Australian Government
Publishing Service, Canberra.
National Tertiary Education Union (NTEU) (2000), Unhealthy Places of Learning: Working in
Australian Universities, Melbourne.
Neumann, R. and Guthrie, J. (2002), “The corporatization of research in Australian higher
education”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 13, pp. 721-41.
Noblet, A., Rodwell, J. and McWilliams, J. (2006), “Organisational change in the public sector:
augmenting the demand control model to predict employee outcomes under New Public
Management”, Work & Stress, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 335-52.
Nunnally, J.C. (1978), Psychometric Theory, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Parker, L. (2002), “It’s been a pleasure doing business with you: a strategic analysis and critique
of university management”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 13, pp. 603-19.
Parker, L. (2005), “Corporate governance crisis down under: post-Enron accounting education
and research inertia”, European Accounting Review, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 383-94.
Parker, L. and Gould, G. (1999), “Changing public sector accountability: critiquing new
directions”, Accounting Forum, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 109-35.
Parker, L., Guthrie, J. and Gray, R. (1998), “Accounting and management research: passwords
from the gatekeepers”, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability, Vol. 11, pp. 371-402.
Patience, A. (1999), “Silencing the academy? Reflecting on a dispute in a corporatising
university”, Australian Universities’ Review, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 64-71.
Poole, D. (2001), “Moving towards professionalism: the strategic management of international
education activities at Australian universities and their faculties of business”, Higher
Education, Vol. 42, pp. 395-435.
AAAJ Rhoades, L. and Eisenberger, R. (2002), “Perceived organisational support: a review of the
literature”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 4, pp. 698-714.
24,4
Rynes, S.L., Gerhart, B. and Parks, L. (2005), “Personnel psychology: performance evaluation and
pay for performance”, Annual review of Psychology, Vol. 56, pp. 571-600.
Saravanamuthu, K. and Tinker, T. (2002), “The university in the new corporate world”, Critical
Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 13, pp. 545-54.
436 Schermerhorn, J.R., Hunt, J.G. and Osborn, R.N. (2008), Organisational Behavior, John Wiley
& Sons, New York, NY.
Simmons, J. (2002), “An ‘expert witness’ perspective on performance appraisal in universities and
colleges”, Employee Relations, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 86-100.
Sinclair, M. (2004), “The pedagogy of ‘good’ PhD supervision: a national cross-disciplinary
investigation of PhD supervision”, Department of Education, Science and Training,
available at: www.dest.gov.au/NR/rdonlyres/07C6492B-F1BE-45C6-A283-6098B6952D29/
2536/phd_supervision.pdf (accessed October 10, 2008).
Sizer, J., Spee, A. and Bormans, R. (1992), “The role of performance indicators in higher
education”, Higher Education, Vol. 24, pp. 133-55.
Smeenk, S.G.A., Eisinga, R.N., Teelken, J.C. and Doorewaard, J.A.C.M. (2006), “The effects of
HRM practices and antecedents on organisational commitment among university
employees”, International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 17 No. 12,
pp. 2035-54.
Spector, P.E. (1985), “Measurement of human service staff satisfaction: development of the Job
Satisfaction Survey”, American Journal of Community Psychology, Vol. 13 No. 6,
pp. 693-713.
Spector, P.E. (1987), “Method variance as an artifact in self-reported effect and perceptions at
work: myth or significant problem?”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 72 No. 3,
pp. 438-43.
Spielberger, C.D. and Reheiser, E.C. (1995), “Measuring occupational stress: The Job Stress
Survey”, in Crandall, R. and Perrewé, P.L. (Eds), Occupational Stress. A Handbook, Taylor
& Francis, Washington, DC.
Stamper, C.L. and Johlke, M.C. (2003), “The impact of perceived organisational support on
relationship between boundary spanner role stress and work outcomes”, Journal of
Management, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 569-88.
Stiles, D.R. (2004), “Narcissus revisited: the values of management academics and their role in
business school strategies in the UK and Canada”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 15,
pp. 157-75.
Sutton, N.C. and Brown, D. (2008), “Management control systems in enabling university research
performance”, in Hartmann, F.G.H. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 31st Annual Congress of
European Accounting Association, European Accounting Association (EAA), Rotterdam,
The Netherlands, pp. 1-26.
Taris, T.W., Schreurs, P.J.G. and Van Iersel-Van Silfhout, I.J. (2001), “Job stress, job strain, and
psychological withdrawal among Dutch university staff: towards a dual process model for
the effects of occupational stress”, Work & Stress, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 283-96.
Taylor, T., Gough, J., Bundrock, V. and Winter, R. (1998), “A bleak outlook: academic staff
perceptions of changes in core activities in Australian higher education, 1991-96”, Studies
in Higher Education, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 255-68.
Tierney, W.G. (2001), “Academic freedom and organisational identity”, Australian Universities
Review, Vol. 44 Nos 1/2, pp. 7-14.
Tietjen, M.A. and Myers, R.M. (1998), “Herzberg and job satisfaction”, Management Decision, University
Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 226-31.
Trevor, C.O., Gerhart, B. and Boudreau, J.W. (1997), “Voluntary turnover and job performance:
corporatisation
curvilinearity and the moderating influences of salary growth and promotions”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 82 No. 1, pp. 44-61.
University Admissions Centre (UAC) (2008), UAI Cut-offs, available at: www4.uac.edu.au/wap/
uac9.aspx?method¼exact&keywords¼science&course_code¼&uais¼&university¼ 437
&submit¼%A0%A0Search%A0%A0 (accessed 14 October 2008).
Watty, K., Bellamy, S. and Morley, C. (2008), “Changes in higher education and valuing the job:
the views of accounting academics in Australia”, Journal of Higher Education Policy and
Management, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 139-51.
Winefield, A.H. and Jarrett, R. (2001), “Occupational stress in university staff”, International
Journal of Stress Management, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 285-98.
Winefield, A.H., Gillespie, N., Stough, C., Dua, J., Hapuarachchi, J. and Boyd, C. (2003),
“Occupational stress in Australian university staff: results from a national survey”,
International Journal of Stress Management, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 51-63.
Winter, R., Taylor, T. and Sarros, J. (2000), “Trouble at ’tmill: quality of academic worklife issues
within a comprehensive Australian university”, Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 25 No. 3,
pp. 279-94.

Appendix
Job satisfaction
.
I feel I am being paid a fair amount for the work I do.
.
I am satisfied with my chances for promotion.
.
My Head of Department shows too little interest in the feelings of subordinates.
.
The benefits we receive are as good as those offered by most organisations.
.
I find I have to work harder at my job because of the incompetence of people I work with.
.
I sometimes feel my job is meaningless.
.
Communication seems good within this organisation.
. When I do a good job, I receive the recognition for it that I should receive.
.
I have too much to do at work.

Job stress
.
There are insufficient administrative personnel to assist academic staff.
.
I frequently deal with crisis situations at my job.
.
There are frequent interruptions in my job.
.
There is a need for meeting deadlines at my job.
.
There is excessive paperwork in my job.
.
I frequently make critical on-the-spot decisions in my job.
.
I find there is competition for advancement in my workplace.
.
I find my work area noisy.
.
I frequently get assigned to new or unfamiliar duties in my job.
.
I am frequently assigned increased responsibility.
AAAJ .
I cover work for other employees.
24,4 .
My job involves frequent changes from boring to demanding activities.
.
There are times when I have no work to do.
.
I work excessive hours in my job.
. I perform tasks that are not in my job description.
438 .
I have insufficient personal time due to my job.

Management style
.
The separatist managerial style has been defined as generally focused on collegiality,
freedom of expression, autonomy, professionalism and acquisition of knowledge for its
own sake.
. The hegemonist managerial style has been defined as generally focused on administrative
effectiveness, financial reward, career advancement and customer orientation.

Perceived organisational support

.
My organisation takes pride in my accomplishments at work.
.
My organisation really cares about my well-being.
.
My organisation values my contribution to its well-being.
.
My organisation strongly considers my goals and values.
. My organisation shows very little concern for me.
.
My organisation is willing to help me when I need a special favour.

Effectiveness of the performance management system

(a) Monitoring of staff performance.

(b) Identifying areas that are of concern to staff.

(c) Improving communication.

(d) Strengthening accountability.

(e) Promoting improved performance.

(f) Aligning individual and organisational objectives.

(g) Determining training and development needs.

(h) Appraising past performance.

(i) Assisting career planning decisions.

( j) Providing useful performance feedback to individuals.

(k) Providing accurate assessment of performance.

(l) Enhancing motivation.

Institutional factors University
.
Increasing student/staff ratios. corporatisation
.
Declining academic ability of students.
.
Increasing proportion of non-English speaking background students.
.
Poorly motivated students.
.
Minimal participation of students in class. 439
.
Poor preparation by students for classes.

Corresponding author
Aleksandra Pop-Vasileva can be contacted at: apopvasi@efs.mq.edu.au

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

View publication stats