How academics respond, adapt and cope with the transformational changes in the
description of the changing environment of the Australian Higher Education Sector. The exogenous and endogenous changes have resulted in the transformation of universities into institutions that have become preoccupied with business rather than pedagogic ideals, and the coercion of academic staff into believing business service metrics are more significant than teacher student relations.
The work life balance of Australian academics has been dramatically affected since the 1980s, essentially as a result of government policy. The attractiveness of academia over the years has diminished with respect to status, control, prestige and salary (Bentley et al. 2013b). The boundary between work and family is increasingly becoming blurred (Currie & Eveline 2011) and job satisfaction in Australian universities has suffered and threatens the sustainability of the industry that is reliant on autonomously motivated knowledge workers (Bentley et al. 2013b). Since the Whitlam era on the mid 1970s, universities have experienced a considerable increase in student numbers that has not been commensurate with increases in government funding. Then introduction of the Higher Education Contribution Scheme was an attempt to address this funding imbalance, but subsequent governments took funding away from universities and created an environment where, as argued above, universities lacked proper indexation and the process of marketising to get other sources of funding. The efforts of governments to commercialise universities and the universities’ attempts to cope with new neo-liberal policies and deregulation have resulted in compromises to scholarship and the creation of a difficult workplace for both academics and students. The marked deterioration of working conditions of Australian academics as a result of work intensification has resulted in an unrelenting invasion into their private home life ultimately negatively impacting on their work life balance (Currie & Eveline 2011) .
Causal links can be drawn with the productivity metrics, namely student evaluation of teaching and subject surveys and RAIs I(Research Active Index) that were introduced by universities to measure academics’ work, and the dramatic transformation of the once- collegial work environment to a business workplace with managerialist control. The workload models, introduced by universities to account for teaching, research and administrative duties, can be linked to the creation of more stress and a more unpleasant work environment for academics. The models served to decrease job satisfaction and motivation, did not account for all academic work, and created serious work life imbalance (Bellamy et al. 2003; Harman 2003; Marginson 2000). Universities’ attempts at managing their business objectives and the creation of a more flexible workforce, led to the increase in casualisaton of new academic staff and more stress for the existing ageing staff. Anderson et al. (2002)
How academics respond, adapt and cope with the transformational changes in the
posits that increased pressure on an ageing academic workforce will lead to retirements and the loss of a workplace knowledge base.
Attempts to use technology to weaken physical and temporal boundaries between work and home has created the ‘potable humanoid office’ (Challenger 2002) but has done little to improve the management of work life balance. Work boundaries, according to Nippert-Eng (1996), whether they are physical, temporal, emotional or cognitive, are an attempt to limit the work from invading the boarders of private space. According to Ashforth et al (2000), many organisations encourage greater integration between work and home leading to more work related flexibility. Mirchandani (1998), advocates that this does not suit all workers, particularly those who seek clear boundaries between social and working hours. Blurred social and working hours leads to work intensification, a life that becomes more complex and rushed and more challenges in dealing with work life balance (Brannan 2002). Case studies have shown that longer working hours and work intensification have a deleterious impact on health, marital relations and absenteeism on families, workers and managers (Pocock 2003; Peetz et al. 2003; Probert et al. 2000).
Globalisation and universities foray into international markets has opened the doors for movement towards a 24/7 society where working hours become more flexible and longer (Perrons 2003). Conventional nine to five hours of work to not suit this new time regime and it is often incumbent on academics to work outside conventional hours if they are to meet management requirements of timely responses to international student enquiries. These new, contemporary working hours have added enormously to work intensity over the years. The Australian university sector has over recent years incrementally transformed into a polemic industrial relations arena as a result of vested interests and ambiguities in policy interpretation. Entrenched groups, such as unions, whose role is protecting employment conditions, have been challenged by managerialism in their efforts to strongly resist increased workloads and changing roles of their members. The changes to academics’ workload have resulted in an inability to balance demands of teaching, research and administration. A key measure of such change is autonomy, which reflects the amount of control employees have over their work and remains a significant buffer against work related stress (Miller et al. 1990; Ray & Miller 1991). As a result of reduction in autonomy, academics are becoming increasingly dispirited, demoralised and alienated from their organisation (Ferrer, Foley & Van Gramberg 2009; Halsey 1992; Winter & Sarros 2002) and accordingly are in constant battle with management to arrive at more equitable solutions. Academic unions, such as the NTEU, have been actively involved in the Enterprise Bargaining process to resist the continuous erosion of working conditions, but have had
How academics respond, adapt and cope with the transformational changes in the
limited success in decelerating the force of change due to the passive resistance of members and the unrelenting impetus for change. Deeg (2005) posits that the university climate is in constant upheaval as change is happening from within and players are trying to make the most of ambiguities in the existing process by applying innovative interpretations. No matter the efforts invested in work models and frameworks, successful workplace outcomes are reliant on discretionary and qualitative factors that acknowledge mutual dependency and a commitment to seeking ways to stimulate mutuality (Whitchurch et al. 2013; Dunkin 2003).