Manajemen | Fakultas Ekonomi Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji 2003 1 (32)
AUSTRALIAN WORKPLACE AGREEMENTS
AND HIGH PERFORMANCE WORKPLACES:
A REPLY
RICHARD MITCHELL* AND JOEL FETTER**
We have considered the points raised by Paul Gollan and Jonathan Hamberger
in their response to our article.
We agree with them on some issues. In particular, it is obvious that generalising
about HRM approaches to employment arrangements is difficult because of the
imprecise language and concepts used in the human resources literature. In some
respects, therefore, differences between us are largely matters of interpretation.
Two main issues are raised by Gollan and Hamberger. The first of these
concerns the background to the introduction of AWAs. Gollan and Hamberger
claim that the promoters of AWAs were not concerned with attempting culture
change relating to High Commitment or High Performance Workplace Systems.
In our article we have drawn together ‘high performance’, ‘high commitment’,
‘high trust’ and other similar concepts as being creatures of the same set of
human resource management ideas. We have provided evidence relying on
the Business Council of Australia’s workplace relations study and the industrial
relations policies of the Liberal/National coalition which we believe demonstrated
a commitment to this group of ideas (whilst acknowledging the inexact nature
of these concepts).
Further, we were explicit in claiming only that culture change based upon the
HRM agenda was one source of justification for individualisation—not the sole
justification.
The second important point made by Gollan and Hamberger was that one
cannot merely rely upon the text of the agreement as the only source of evidence
about High Performance or High Trust practices. We expressly agreed with that
proposition in the article. However, we do think that the text of agreements says
something about workplace standards and practices, and we have noted other
published studies which reach similar conclusions to our own. Nevertheless, other
research, such as that carried out by the Office of the Employment Advocate itself,
is clearly relevant, as we have acknowledged.
Debate and discussion on the purpose, usefulness and instrumentality of
AWAs seems to be intensifying and we are pleased to be able to contribute
to that process.
* Professor and Director, **Research Assistant, Centre for Employment and Labour Relations Law,
The University of Melbourne, Victoria 3010, Australia. Email: [email protected]
THE JOURNAL OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, VOL. 45, NO. 4, DECEMBER 2003, 528
AND HIGH PERFORMANCE WORKPLACES:
A REPLY
RICHARD MITCHELL* AND JOEL FETTER**
We have considered the points raised by Paul Gollan and Jonathan Hamberger
in their response to our article.
We agree with them on some issues. In particular, it is obvious that generalising
about HRM approaches to employment arrangements is difficult because of the
imprecise language and concepts used in the human resources literature. In some
respects, therefore, differences between us are largely matters of interpretation.
Two main issues are raised by Gollan and Hamberger. The first of these
concerns the background to the introduction of AWAs. Gollan and Hamberger
claim that the promoters of AWAs were not concerned with attempting culture
change relating to High Commitment or High Performance Workplace Systems.
In our article we have drawn together ‘high performance’, ‘high commitment’,
‘high trust’ and other similar concepts as being creatures of the same set of
human resource management ideas. We have provided evidence relying on
the Business Council of Australia’s workplace relations study and the industrial
relations policies of the Liberal/National coalition which we believe demonstrated
a commitment to this group of ideas (whilst acknowledging the inexact nature
of these concepts).
Further, we were explicit in claiming only that culture change based upon the
HRM agenda was one source of justification for individualisation—not the sole
justification.
The second important point made by Gollan and Hamberger was that one
cannot merely rely upon the text of the agreement as the only source of evidence
about High Performance or High Trust practices. We expressly agreed with that
proposition in the article. However, we do think that the text of agreements says
something about workplace standards and practices, and we have noted other
published studies which reach similar conclusions to our own. Nevertheless, other
research, such as that carried out by the Office of the Employment Advocate itself,
is clearly relevant, as we have acknowledged.
Debate and discussion on the purpose, usefulness and instrumentality of
AWAs seems to be intensifying and we are pleased to be able to contribute
to that process.
* Professor and Director, **Research Assistant, Centre for Employment and Labour Relations Law,
The University of Melbourne, Victoria 3010, Australia. Email: [email protected]
THE JOURNAL OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, VOL. 45, NO. 4, DECEMBER 2003, 528