Search results

This paper introduces the findings of an unusual international endeavour that combines action research with leadership development for 40 senior officials from Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the UK. The four nation Leadership Across Borders programme, co‐delivered by the governments' business schools of each country, set out to explore and understand some of the most significant facets of public service ranging from citizen engagement to whole‐of‐government complexity, and from the economic downturn to crisis management. Over the 10 months of the programme, the senior group engaged with heads of the public service, leading academics, delivery experts, leaders of civic society and scores of street level service users. This paper highlights the critical importance of understanding complexity and the role of ‘systems thinking’ in dealing with modern problems. But it also points to a new order of innovation required of leaders if they are to bring value to problems such as deprivation and global financial crises, and if they are to successfully bring about citizen‐centred services in increasingly complex societies.

Leadership and organisational change starts with thinking: thinking about problems, thinking about possibilities and thinking about capabilities. But thinking never occurs in a vacuum. Long gone are the days when a chief executive officer would disappear for weeks with a towel over their head only to reappear to announce ‘the strategy’ to the organisation. Thinking is of course a social activity that sees people coming together to develop and share ideas. The job of leadership is to exercise mastery over the process of social thinking in order to engage workers, to generate innovative ideas and to bring about change where needed. This paper considers the habits of social thinking, with reference to those found in the UK Civil Service, and proposes tools for leaders to significantly enhance their success.

This article describes how effective public service leaders are choosing to lead in exceptionally challenging circumstances. It outlines the current crucible of demand for excellent services and significant cost reduction and radical organisational change. At its core, it shows how some public service leaders are making great progress by making five key choices ‐ demonstrating bold, engaging and collaborative leadership; majoring on the transformational not transactional elements of change; not letting the inevitable uncertainties get in the way of intense engagement of their people; making tough calls on priorities; and steering their leadership teams and broader leadership communities towards genuine collaboration and connectedness.The article also identifies six leadership frames that public service leaders are drawing on: confidence; safe uncertainty(Mason, 1983); employee engagement; trustworthy leadership; collective, mutually supportive leadership; and appreciative, transformational choices.

The purpose of this paper is to examine sustainable human resource management (HRM) based on the synthesis and simultaneous effects of high-performance work systems (HPWS) on organisational performance and employee harm in five Asia Pacific countries.

Data collected using the CRANET survey instrument was analysed using two canonical correlation analyses.

This study found flexible high-performance work arrangements (FHPWA), such as tele-working and compressed working week could have a negative effect on organisational performance. However, it also found that employee benefits and trade union influence have a moderating effect on the impact of FHPWA resulting in improved organisational profitability and reduction of employee harm.

Limitations include the aggregation of the data from the five countries and consequently the neglect of national institutional factors on the impact of HPWS on outcomes. A limited number of factors were used as indicators of HPWS, organisational performance and employee wellbeing/employee harm.

This study indicates particular HRM policies considered as part of a HPWS have different impacts on organisational profitability and employee wellbeing. There is a need for further research to determine the impact of particular policies and to also examine the interaction and moderating effects of high-performance work practices and trade unions.

This study contributes to the growing body of knowledge on sustainable HRM by examining the impact of HPWS on organisational performance and employee wellbeing. It is the first time this has been examined in Asian pacific countries.

This paper seeks to assess the Australian approach to managing a culturally diverse workforce by examining the outcomes of this approach.

The paper applies Syed and Özbilgin's relational, multilevel framework for managing diversity to study policies at three interrelated levels. At the macro‐national level, the paper examines legal and public policy initiatives for managing cultural diversity. At the meso‐organisational level, the paper discusses a variety of workplace diversity management approaches. This discussion encompasses the legal requirements for organisations to remove discrimination, and to create an equal employment opportunity workplace. A voluntary management approach known as “diversity management” is also outlined. At the micro‐individual level, the paper examines unique employment‐related issues faced by ethnic minority workers because of their ethnic, linguistic and religious identities. The multilevel perspectives are synthesised in a model labelled “the Australian model for managing cultural diversity”.

The legal framework in Australia places only limited obligations on organisations to manage cultural diversity. As a consequence, while a range of organisational responses have proliferated, an integrated approach towards managing culturally diverse workers is absent. The paper argues that, unless cultural diversity is tackled at multiple levels and in a more integrated way, any attempt to either understand or manage such diversity may prove unrealistic.

The paper offers helpful advice to decision makers at the macro‐national and meso‐organisational policy levels vis‐à‐vis developing a realistic understanding of managing diversity through a multilevel framework.