Psychological ownership is a feeling of possession in the absence of any formal or legal claims of ownership. The aim of our research was to extend previous empirical testing psychological ownership in work settings to encompass both job-based and organization-based psychological ownership, related work attitudes and behavioral outcomes.Questionnaire data from 68 employees and their managers revealed both job-based and organization-based psychological ownership as distinct work attitudes, distinguishable from job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Psychological ownership also predicted job satisfaction and organizational commitment, and mediated the relationship between autonomy and these work attitudes. There was no support for a relationship between psychological ownership and behavioral outcomes. We conclude with a discussion of the limitations of our research and the implications of psychological ownership.

This paper presents systematic data on downsizing and delayering trends in Australia and New Zealand. It is based on comparative survey data of 1321 private and public sector organizations. The distribution and depth of downsizing is similar in the two countries. The article compares the outcomes of downsizing in relation to key HRM variables. Our results indicate opposing trends between New Zealand and Australia: in Australia firms have suffered negative human resource outcomes following downsizing, whereas in New Zealand employee motivation and commitment have tended to increase after downsizing. Why are there such wide discrepancies between the outcomes in New Zealand and Australia? The article concludes that discrepancies arise partly because of the restructuring cycle and partly because the frequency of downsizing in Australian organizations has created a severe case of 'survivor syndrome'. These conclusions have implications for the management of downsizing. this paper is part of a broader project on organizational restructuring, downsizing, delayering and management labour markets co-ordinated by Professor Craig R. Littler in conjunction with Professor Richard Dunford, Dr Tom Bramble, Dr Retha Wiesner (USQ) and Professor Leo Vermeulen (University of Pretoria).We would like to thank Elizabeth O'Brien for her assiduous efforts with the AAA database; Evan Stewart and Peter Innes for their assistance with data analysis; Don Smith for his help with the Australian survey; and Chris O'Reilly for her patient work. The sampling frame for the Australian survey was derived from the membership of AHRI. We would also like to thank AHRI for their support. Finally, we would like to thank the editor, Dr Helen De Cieri, for her comments and constructive criticism.

This article considers the continued relevance of two key arguments made by Callus (1986) in the mid-1980s as regards Australian trade union officials: first, that the labour market for trade union officials is clearly and sharply segmented; and second, that the growth of expert officer appointments has had a negligible impact on union democracy. Using census and union data, I conclude that the segmentation detected by Callus may be eroding, that union officials as a bloc are becoming increasingly differentiated from the rank-and-file membership, and that, although the growth of the expert officer class is secondary in its effect when compared to the main forces restricting the full play of union democracy, it may nonetheless be having an impact. The article concludes by considering the poten tial for a revival of union democracy.

The purpose of this paper is to assess the claim by the Office of the Employment Advocate (OEA)and the Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business (DEWRSB)that Australian Workplace Agreements (AWAs)allow employers to integrate both the ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ dimensions of ‘strategic’ human resource management (HRM)theory, providing greater efficiency and profitability,while also givingemployees more flexibility. Based on a review of the literature and the content of 539 AWAs approved between March 1997 and June 1998, we conclude that the general trend of AWAs is towards the ‘hard’ HRM philosophy of minimisation of costs and maximisation of flexibility of hours. Provisions based around the developmental and personal needs of employees are relatively uncommon and, where they occur, are usually brief. Contrary to Government predictions, there is very little evidence that AWAs are being used to advance the philosophy of ‘soft’ HRM.

No abstract