Perceptions of Participative Workplace Change – Attitudinal Survey 141 

Research Question 2 asked:

To what extent do management and union representatives perceive fairness in the provisions and practices of the Australian HE sector to facilitate workplace change and foster employee participation?

The second research question deals with the issue of the perceptions of participative workplace change by those involved in the change. This question was operationalised by undertaking a survey of the attitudes of senior management and union representatives in Australia’s 37 public universities on the fairness of participative workplace change. Section 5.5 sets out the details of the data collection. The selection of this senior group of survey participants was made on the basis that they are most directly involved in workplace change and would be able to answer from direct experience. It is however accepted that this sample is, in turn, not completely representative of line managers, middle managers or lower level staff who may have voiced different opinions on the fairness or otherwise of change. The sample thus represents a limitation to the study but also points to an area for future research and this is taken up in Chapter 10.

By undertaking an attitudinal survey of senior management and union representatives, from both academic and general staff, it was intended to measure the reality of employees experiences of actual participative workplace change undertaken within their university and accordingly allow for an important point of comparison with the provisions for participative workplace change provided for in the EBAs identified in the longitudinal study. In effect the two research questions together aimed to provide a ‘rhetoric versus reality’ view of participative change management in the sector by comparing espoused policy against actual practice.

Alternative approaches to conducting the attitudinal survey were considered such as a series of case studies but this was discounted because the time required for such a exercise was beyond the that available for the present study. An empirical analysis of industrial disputes lodged with the Australian Industrial Relations Commission was also considered for this research but again discounted, as it would have involved a very narrow sample arguably in a more adversarial context and in a very formalised and legalistic environment. Nevertheless, these are both avenues for further research in the field.

The attitudinal survey instrument (Appendix 5) was developed using a combination of existing scales across the three key themes of the thesis: workplace change (Victor and Franckeiss, 2002), employee participation (IRG, 1976) and organisational justice

(Cobb, Foger et al, 1995 and Paterson, Green et al, 2002). These were described in detail in Chapters 2, 3 and 4

The indicators used to measure workplace change (Victor and Francekeiss 2002:36- 40) consists of eight measures:

1. The ability to present reasons for the change 2. The ability to argue that change is necessary 3. The ability to describe the nature of the change 4. The ability to document the change process 5. The ability to achieve the goals of the change 6. The ability to implement the change process 7. The ability to review the change process

8. The ability to build consensus around the change

The scale for assessing employee participation was the degree of employee participation scale (IRG, 1976:203) which was used in the longitudinal study. As discussed above, the seven elements in the scale comprised:

1. No regulation

2. Information (unspecified) must be given to the group 3. Information (ex ante) must be given to the group

4. The right of initiative: group has the right to give an opinion about the issue on its own imitative

5. Consultation of group obligatory: group must always be consulted prior to the decisions taken

6. Joint decision making with group: group has veto power, must give its approval, the decision outcome is a result of bargaining

7. Group itself has the final say

The organisational justice scale comprised three different subscales based on the three known dimensions of organisational justice: distributive justice (the fairness of the outcome), procedural justice (fairness of the process) and interactional justice (fairness of the interpersonal treatment). These dimensions were described in detail in

Chapter 4. The scale for assessing distributive justice was developed by Cobb, Folger et al (1995:137-140). They identified five indicators of distributive justice:

1. The final decision was based on merit

2. The decision impacted equally on all participants 3. The needs of the organisation were considered 4. The needs of the participants were considered

5. Appropriate compensation was provided for adverse decisions

The scale for assessing procedural justice was developed Paterson, Green et al (2002:400) who identified six indicators for procedural justice:

1. Decisions were made consistently

2. Decision making processes were impartial 3. Decisions were based on accurate information

4. Opportunities were provided to employees to have input

5. Compatibility of the process with organisational ethics and values 6. Appropriate mechanisms to appeal the decision

Finally, the scale for assessing interactional justice was developed by Paterson, Green et al (2002:400) who identified six indicators for interactional justice:

1. There was honesty in the decision making process 2. Staff were treated courteously during the process 3. Staff had their rights respected during the process 4. The decision making process was devoid of prejudice 5. Decisions that were made were appropriately justified 6. Decisions that were made were communicated transparently

Each of the five areas of the survey (change, participation and the three justice areas) utilised a five point Likert Scale ranging across the following answers: very low, low, neutral, high and very high. For each question there was also an opportunity to provide written comments to support or illustrate the answer.

The next section turns now to the operationalisation of Research Question 3.