Friend or Foe? New Managerialism and Technical, Administrative and Clerical Support Staff in Australian Universities

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to assess and conceptualise the effects of new managerialism-related organisational reforms in three Australian public universities on technical, administrative and clerical support staff job stressors and job satisfaction.Using a mixed method approach consisting of a quantitative core component and qualitative supplementary component it was found that six different types of stressors were evident: time, information; supervisory; work environment; staffing and pay; and career. Path analysis showed that these stressors were closely connected to reduced job satisfaction, which could be ameliorated by employee participation, improved communication and workrelated social support. However, the qualitative analysis suggested that the prevailing climate of managerialism was not conducive to such improvements. It is concluded that while appropriate human-resource management strategies have the potential to prevent the worst consequences of change,there is some doubt about the ability of university managers, captured by new managerialism, to create and implement such an approach.

"Change Initiatives, Stressors, and Job Satisfaction: A Social Information Processing Perspective"

“…For example, Noblet et al (2005) noted that local council employees experienced several specific stressors including lack of resources to accomplish tasks, insufficient time to complete work on time and to the standard expected, fast-paced workloads, unrealistic performance targets and inadequate consultation regarding organizational change. Pick, Teo, and Yeung (2012) support these findings in their study of Australian public universities where resourcing issues were found to be a major stressor for university administrative staff. Change also creates uncertainty.…”

Talent Management, Work Engagement and Service Quality Orientation of Support Staff in a Higher Education Institution

“…No studies currently exist relating talent management to the work engagement and service quality of support staff in higher education institutions. A number of researchers highlights that fact that research on support staff in higher educational setting are still scant (see Ablanedo-Rosas et al, 2013;Hurlimann et al, 2013;Pick et al, 2012) despite the growing importance of this occupational group (Sebalj, Holbrook, & Bourke, 2012). Riccio (2010) refers to Lynch (2007) who maintains that higher education institutions, as producers of knowledge, should value the talent management of their staff to remain competitive and relevant in a knowledge economy.…”

“…Support staff faces constant demands form management, academic staff (Ablanedo-Rosas, Blevins, Gao, Teng & White, 2011) without any corresponding recognition. Pick, Teo and Yeung (2012) for example found that support staff faces significant obstacles in higher education in terms of career development opportunities, management support, poor performance management systems, unrealistic deadlines, a lack of participation in decision-making and poor compensation. Burke et al (2013) maintain that effective human resource management practices which also include talent management practices can increase the levels of employee engagement and in turn enhance the service quality provided to clients and overall institutional performance.…”

Relocating professionalism in an English university

“…Kolsaker professionalism (Deem, 2008;Parker & Jary, 1995;Pick, Teo, & Yeung, 2012) and a fundamental reshaping of academic identity (Henkel, 2010;Nixon, 2001Nixon, , 2008Rhoades, 2010;Slaughter & Leslie, 1997). Naidoo and Jamieson (2005) observe a gradual, but pervasive deskilling and commodification of academic work purposely designed to promote consumerist agendas.…”