V<>/V'i v<: rUE 15:13 FAX 61 2 96859593 SCHOOL OF EMPLOYMENT REL @008

lnternutional Employment Relations Review, Vol. 7, No. I. 20()J ?

AN ANALYSIS OF FACTORS INFLUENCING SKILLS LEARNING AND PERSONALCHANGE

Morris AbrahamSchool of Management, University ofTechnology, Sydney,

Robert ConnorSchool of Management, University of Technology. Sydney.

{his study is aimed a/ id(;nl!fj,ing personal and contextual [actors which impactIIpon the effectiveness 0/ a particular model (~rexperiential workshop aimed atmanagerial behaviour change particularly in relation IU Employment Relationsskills. and so providing' a measure a/predictability ofsuccess both in facilitatingchange and increasing the success rate of the change. More specifically, theauthors explore th« factors .•.•.hich may provide a measure ofpredictability bothfor (a) translation of the workshop experience /0 (he workplace (b) using theworkshop experience to make signtficant and lasting subsequent change.

Two questionnaires were distributed 10 participants - (I) a pre-workshopquestionnaire which gathered the necessary personal data on (he participant, and(2) a post-workshop questionnaire over six months after the workshop wasconducted tv determine the long-term workshop outcomes. Results indicate that(hose participants with (a) high belief in the I'0ssibili(ll 0/ self-change (b) highgrowth-need strength, (c) who had identtfied specific patterns 0/ behaviour prior10 the workshop (d) which' they regarded as important to change and (e) reportedrelativelyfew barriers or (e) time pressures 10 ac'tievlng their life goals' were mostlikely (0 lise the workshop experience to accomplish significant and lasting post-workshop change

INTRODUCTION

The wave of changes to organisational and work forms includes flexible work systems. portfoliocareers, continual learning. flattened bureaucracies and empowered workers (Smith, 1997), Thisre-writing of the psychological contract (Millward and Brewerton, 200 I) poses questionsconcerning learning in. the new organisation, especially the acquisition of skills needed to leadwork teams. In the face of rapid change and uncertainty, the ability to learn from experience isconsidered to he a critical skill for individuals and organisations (Argyrls and Schon, 1978; Fiotand Lyles, 1985; Kanter, 1989; Krantz and Gilmore, 1990: Vaill, 1989). The need to improveleadership and managerial skills has seen a surge of interest ill incorporating managerial skillslearning into university courses (Bigelow, 1995: 304).

There an: of course a variety of approaches to the teaching of management and employmentrelations skills which focus on personal, interpersonal, group skills and on communication andleadership styles. Such approaches are based, implicitly on a skill. learning model that traces itsorigins to the social-learning skill concepts of Bandura (I ()77) and now include classroom settings,outdoor management skills programs and intensive skills workshops that lise a combination oftherapy based interventions.

09/04 '02 Tlm 15:14 FAX 61 2 96859593 SCHOOL OF EMPLOYMENT REL llJ009

/1) Morris rlbwlwm and Robert Connot'

Commonly, skills courses and supporting texts such a, Carlopio Andrewartha and Armstrong(200 I) suggest that the proper foundation for skill development lies in increasing one's self.awareness usually through self-exploration of some kind. However the literature on skillstraining does not provide much guidance on personal and contextual factors, which enhancelearning in a workshop context.

"'ACTORS THAT INFLUENCE PERSONAL CHANGE

The Self-Concept and Self-Esteem

Gecas (1991) attempts to show that the self-concept can be used as the basis for a theory ofmotivation. The concept of self-esteem relates directly to the self-concept and is regarded byresearchers as playing a central role in motivation. performance and general well-being (Deciand Ryan. 1995; McKay and Fanning, 1987). It has also been related to feelings of self-love,self-acceptance and a sense of competence (Wells and Marwcll, 1976).

The self-esteem motive refers to the motivation to view oneself favourably and to act in such aW~iY as to maintain (protect) or increase a favourable evaluation of oneself The negativecondition of self-esteem is feelings of worthlessness, self-contempt and depression.

THE COMPETENCE SYSTEM AS A DETE1{MINANT OF CHANGE

Competence refers to the "connection between behaviours and outcomes. Skinner (1995: 8)indicates that "all humans come with an inborn desire 10 interact effectively with theenvironment and so to experience themselves as competent in producing desired and preventingundesired outcomes, All people need to experience control."

1\ Ithough "it is easy to be daunted by the thicket of constructs clustered around the generalnotion of a sense of control." Skinner (1995: 20) explores LOllI' major (overlapping and related)theories of perceived control organised around the constructs of (a) locus of control, (b) call salattributions. (c) learned helplessness, and (d) self-efficacy. Because of the relevance of theseconstructs to our research. we explore them briefly below.

Locus of Control

Internal versus external control, or locus of control has been one of the most heavily investigatedpersonality variables in the history of personality psychology (Lefourt, 1980; 1984; 1992;Rotter, 1966; Phares, 1991). People with an internal locus of control ascribe outcomes to theirown behaviour, whereas those with external locus of control ascribe them to external forces likechance 01' fate (Vecchio, Hearn, and Southey, 1996).

People with a high Internal locus or control believe in the possibility of self ..change. The beliefin human plasticity allows for self-improvement and change, and so becomes a self-fulfillingprophecy (Seligman, 1994).

CAUSAL ATTRIBUTIONS

Weiner (1985) developed a theory of causal attributions. He posited that when somethingnegative or unexpected happens, people ask themselves why. The causes to which they attributeevents can be arrayed along a number or dimensions, the most important of which are internality(causes seen as internal or external to the individual) stability (seen as temporary or more

09/04 '02 Tlffi15:14 FAX 61 2 96859593 SCHOOL OF EMPLOYMENT REL @010

All Analysis of FaCIOI'S Influencing Skil!s Learning and Personal Change f I

permanent over lime) and controllability (seen as controllable or not) (Abramson, Seligman,and Teasdale. 1978).

A person's auributional style, or where they place the locus of causality, is associated with thedevelopment of self-efficacy (Gecas, 1991) and plays a significant role in determining the extentto which the person will take responsibility for changing undesirable behaviours. Bandura(1989) states that people's beliefs in their capability to exercise control over events that affecttheir life is one of the most central and pervasive mechanisms of personal agency,

LEARNED HELPLESSNESS

Learned helplessness is a result of the expectation of the uncontrollability of outcomes(Abramson ct al., 1978), Among the different (actors that may make people more prone tolearned helplessness and its accompanying deficits arc inadequacy of inner resources for dealingwith a mismatch of person-environment, and high reactivity to such a mismatch (Mikulincer,1994).

SELF-EFFICACY

Self-efficacy refers to the motivation to perceive. oneself (IS a causal agent in the environment.The negative side of the sel f-efficacy motive would be helplessness or powerlessness (Seligman,1~)91). We acquire our sense of self-efficacy through (l series of influences in life. The fourmain influences according to Bandura (1995) are: (a) mastery experiences when we learn bydoing; (b) vicarious experiences provided through social models; (c) social persuasion whenothers convince us that we are capable of accomplishing something; and (d) physiological andemotional states when judging our capabilities.

The level of our perceived control, that is, the belief that we are capable of accomplishing aparticular goal coupled with a generalised confidence in our abilities (Maddux, 1995) influencesthe extent of our success.

Stress as a Determinant of Changc

Lazarus and Folkman (1984: 21) define psychological stress as "a relationship between theperson and the environment that is appraised by the person as taxing. or exceeding his or herresources and endangering his or her well-being".

The parallel physiological. psychological, and social systems that comprise our existence help usin maintaining ourselves and in dealing with the stressors in our lives (Trumbull and Appley,1986). Those with high levels of self-efficacy and self-esteem arc more likely to attempt toovercome or change stressful situations rather than tolerating or adjusting to them (Compas etal., 1991; Bruch, 1997).

The intensity of the source of stress is not necessarily commensurate with the intensity of thestress because of thc different coping skills people employ (Pearlin et 0.1., 1981), For example,even positive life events may have a detrimental effect 011 health and well-being for those peoplewho have low self-esteem and negative self-schemata (Brown and McGill, 1989:;, In contrast.those with higher levels or self-esteem can utilise external as well as internal resources such asusing positive thoughts to reduce the relation between life stress and resultant feelings ofdysphoria (Bruch, 1997).

09/04 '02 Tlm 15:15 FAX 61 2 96859593 SC~OOL OF EMPLOYME~ REL

12 A,forris Abraham and Robert COlml)r

In addition to self-efficacy, social support is also regarded as an ameliorating factor for stress,Social support is not to be confused with social network membership (Aneshensel, 1992),because a person can be in such a network as family for instance, but not have adequate supportbecause of family and/or cultural mores.

The decision to change one's behaviour in order to cope with stress in self-enhancing rather thanaccommodating ways therefore relates to the extent to which people perceive themselves as ableto control their circumstances as well as to the level of social support they receive inimplementing and maintaining change,

Growth Need Strength (GNS) and Self-Change

The previous discussions have focused primarily on control. However. psychologists whoemphasise human potential argue that everyone has [It least a spark of the need to grow anddevelop personally. Maslow has labelled this a need I'or sch-actualisation (Maslow, 1987).Herzberg (1968: 57) has similarly commented on the set of needs. which relate "to that uniquehuman characteristic. the ability to achieve, and through achievement, to experiencepsychological growth", According to Herzberg, the stimuli for the growth needs in the industrialsetting are tasks that induce growth, The growth or motivator factors that are intrinsic to the jobare achievement, recognition, work itself responsibility, growth or advancement.

l Iackman et al. (InS) provide a measure of GNS as pan or a Job Diagnostic Survey.Essentially, some people have strong needs for personal accomplishment, for learning anddeveloping themselves beyond where they are nOW, for being stimulated and challenged and soon, These people are hig:h in growth-need strength.

STAGES Of' CHANGE

What propels people to change varies with each individual and circumstances. Motivators forchange may relate to external 01' internal pressures. the need to adjust to some new set orcircumstances. dissatisfaction with existing behaviours or the desire to achieve some other goalor benefit associated wirh new behaviours, Prochaska et al. (1992a: 88) describe change asrepresenting "a movement from one rather steady state or pattern of behaviour through atransition to another relatively stable state or pattern. It is not automatic nor is it a simpledichotomous event.".

The authors describe a series of stages in the process or change. These stages are:

Pre-contemplation Preparation Action Maintenance Relapse.

During the pre-contemplation stage. people are not aware that there is a problem, do not wish tochange. and can remain in this stage indefinitely. If change is forced upon them, they will notmaintain it and will revert back to their old habits at the first opportunity. During thecontemplation stage people become aware that there is a problem but are not yet committed tochanging. The preparation stage includes intention to change and some behaviour criteriarelevant [0 the change, The commitment to change comes in the action stage in which peoplemodify their behaviour. environment and/or experiences in order to overcome their problems.The change continues in the maintenance stage in which the person consolidates changes andprevents relapse.

Prochaska er al, (1992b: 110) believe that "efficient self-change depends on doing the rightthings (processes) at the right time (stages)". A mismatch of these often results in failure and

09/04 '02 Tlm 15:15 FAX 61 2 96859593 SCHOOL OF EMPLOYMENT REL III 012

.-/nAnalysis of Factors IlJjlll~lJ("il7g Skills Learning and Personal ('h(/ng~ /3

frustration, Often efforts to enlist people into change programs. which are action oriented. donot succeed if the people are not yet in the preparation 01' action stages. If they do F.articipate ina program they quickly relapse and often return to the pre-contemplation stage (Prochaska andDiClemente. 1992, cited in Prochaska et al., 1992a: Prochaska et al., 1992b). Similarly, Bandura(1986: 254) believes that "changes do not automatically generalize nor do they necessarily last".Developing the right interventions to suit a person IS stage of change is thus essential for success.

Kiecolt (1994) emphasises intentional self-change as opposed to change that happens routinelyor inadvertently. The former incorporates changes in self-conception, roles and/or identities andincludes behavioural changes. Kiecolt (1994) also suggests a model of the decision to changethat shows a progression through four stages: (a) impetus to change. (b) conditioning factors. (c)critical event, and (d) appraisal.

In the lirst stage, the impetus to change oneself, stressors and life events lead to unfavourablereflected appraisals, lower self-esteem and perceived competence. and unfavourable socialcomparisons. This in turn may lead to reduced levels of self-efficacy and self-esteem, causingpsychological distress. In the second stage of impetus to change. conditioning factors includeidentifying the stressor as relevant to one's identity. attributing the responsibility for the stressorto oneself having access ro structural and social supports for self-change. believing thai self-change is possible, and assessing the benefits of changing as outweighing costs. The third stage,which is not always necessary, is the critical event or turning point; the fourth and final stage isthe appraisat that finally leads to the decision to change.

When comparing Kiecolt's (1994) model of the decision to change with the Prochaska et al,(1992a; 1992b) model of the process of change. we sec that the former model relates to two ofthe stages ofthc latter model, namely. contemplation and preparation.

The Research Context - Workshop in Advanced Managerial SId lis.

The Workshop in Advanced Managerial skills is a unique intensive skills program (Abrahamand Connor, 1997) wh ich forms part of the curriculum of a range of postgraduate businesscourses at UTS. It has also been run with a variety of organisations outside the University.Evaluations of the prognun and subsequent anecdotal evidence from some students often yearsafter the workshop experience indicated that the workshop had a very significant impact on theirbehaviour. This suggested a need to carry out an evaluation on factors, which appeared toinfluence the perceived effectiveness of workshop outcomes.

The workshop aims both to improve participants' awareness regarding any dysfunctionalbehaviour patterns they may have, ami to lead them towards more functional choices. It isdesigned to provide participants to increase their competence in interpersonal, group andorganisational processes and to transfer their learning from the workshop to their daily life.

The workshop is delivered in an intensive mode with two days ~)flectures/ exercises followed bythree days of workshop activity (after a gap of approximately six weeks). In the first two daysparticipants arc presented with various psychological and managerial frameworks aimed atidentifying patterns and causes of functional and dysfunctional behaviour in personal andorganisational contexts. A number of related experiential exercises further hclp participants toobserve their own patterns of behaviour and to relate these to the theoretical material covered,

Following the two days, participants carry out an assignment to seek 360-degree feedback inboth work and personal contexts. This helps to identify functional and dysfunctional patterns ofbehaviour. and to focus on personal aims for the workshop.

09/04 '02 Tl~ 15:15 FAX 61 2 96859593 SCHOOL OF EMPLOYMENT REL IaJ013

/./ Murris Abraham and Rob(!1'1 Connor

During the subsequent three-day workshop, a climate of acceptance and non-judgmental attitudeis encouraged throughout and the facilitator/lecturer models compassionate acceptance of anydysfunctional patterns. As a result a group culture of understanding and tolerance is developedand participants are encouraged to observe their patterns of dysfunctional behaviour so as to beable to explore and understand the affective, intellectual and action components of thosepatterns. More specifically, the workshop affords participants opportunities to really becomeaware of the nature of the patterns they bring to a particular context (b) to explore thefunctionality of these patterns; and (c) to explore and experiment with alternative (and morefunctional) patterns of behaviour.

The beginning of workshop skills learning is the "seeing" of one's current pattern or repertoire withrespect to a particular situation. Such "seeing" involves a full awareness of the affective. intellectualand physical aspects of the puucrn. During the workshop. the facilitator and group create orsimulate situations which evoke the same patterns OJ' which demand similar combinations ofaffective, intellectual and action competencies of the participant as arc experienced in the difficultsituation. Through self-observation and feedback both from the facilitator and the group.participants become aware of how they do things. The facilitator explores the components of thecurrent patterns of action and leads the participant toward exploring more functional patterns. Anexperienced facilitator will work beyond the surface structure and will look for "key features" inparticipants' patterns. which generalise to dysfunction in a wide range of contexts.

The use of various theoretical frames, such as TA, RET Gestalt. and somatic therapies are usedto analyse the dysfunctional patterns help participants become more aware of the deeper reasonsunderlying their dysfunctional behaviour.

Alter the workshop, students complete a second assignment in which they reflect on the learningexperiences in the workshop. Through this assignment. they are also required to design,implement, practice and report on a specific program of action for achieving the learning goalsthey selected for the workshop.

AIMS AND RATIONALE OF nit STUDY

This study was aimed at testing the following general hypotheses: - namely that participants (a)with a high internal locus of control, high self esteem. high GNS and (b) the presence of post-workshop external conditions with minimum barriers to change, support for change and timeavailable to institute change, would experience most lasting change from the workshop, Morespecifically, the following hypotheses were tested:

Hypotheses Relating to Competency Factors: (Locus of Control, Attribution, LearnedHelplessness, and Self-Esteem).

Participants who report high feelings of self-worth and self-efficacy would be more likely toreport significant post-workshop personal and professional life changes as a result ofparticipation in the workshop.

I. Those participant), who attributed the responsibility of life events to themselves (locus ofcontrol, attribution theory) rather than outside forces, and a strong belief in the possibility ofself-change would be more likely to report significant post-workshop personal andprofessional life changes as a result of participation in the workshop.

09/04 '02 Tlm 15:16 FAX 61 2 96859593 SCHOOL OF EMPLOYMENT REL llJ014

..In Analysis of FaClnri "ifliwnclI1g Skills Learning and Personal Change J 5

Hypotheses related to Growth need Strength

2. The higher the GNS. the more likely that a clear direction for change would emerge for theparticipant.

3- The higher the GNS of the participant. the more likely that he/she would report havingmade significant changes in his Orher personal/professional life following the workshop.

Hypothesis related to Models of Change

4. The more clearly a participant identified important dysfunctional patterns. or change goalsprior to the workshop, (contemplation phase) the more likely that he/she would makesubsequent changes that were stable and lasting, Conversely, the more the participantentered the workshop with no clear change goals. (pre-contemplation) the less likely thatpost workshop change would OCClIr,

5, The greater the importance allocated to the changing of the identified behaviour patternsprior to the workshop. the greater the motivation and direction for change.

Hypotheses related to Stress and Support Factors

6. The higher the reported barriers to achieving one's life goals and/or the greater thecompeting demands (time pressures) reported in the participant's life, the lower themotivation to translate workshop skills to outside practice, Alternatively, the less theenvironmental demands. upon the participant. the greater the motivation to transfer learning.

7_ Participants who reported higher levels or structural and social support would be moremotivated to continue making efforts at self-change following the workshop.

RESEARCH METHOD

Prior to the workshop (three day) segment of the course, all participants were provided with <L

"pre-workshop" questionnaire in two p<lI15.

Pal'! 1 of the questionnaire tested tor stressors, locus of control, causal attribution, self-esteemprimarily related to Kiecott's (1994) model. The items in part one and their relationship torelevant theory discussed in this paper are shown ill Table I in the results section of the paper.

Part 2 of the questionnaire tested the participant's GNS. This part of the questionnaire wasderived from the GNS section of the Job Diagnostic Questionnaire (Hackman et d" 1975), andconsists of two sections.

In Section I of this questionnaire, respondents rated the desirability of II items on a Likertscale, Six of these items (embedded in the II) were related to GNS and included - stimulatingand challenging work; chances to exercise independent thought and action in the job;opportunities to lear» new things; opportunities 10 be creative and imaginative, opportunities forpersonal growth and development in the job, and a sense of accomplishrncnt in one's work.

Section 2, included 12 items, and respondents were asked to indicate which of two jobs listed ateither end of a Likert scale (1-5) they would personally prefer. At opposite ends of the scalewere job characteristics such as good pay versus opportunity to be creative and innovative;making important decislous versus working with pleasant people; a job giving greater

09/04 '02 Ttm 15:16 FAX 61 2 96859593 SCHOOL OF EMPLOYMENT REL ~015

/6 Morris Abraham and Robert Conn or

responsibility to those who do the best work versus giving responsibility to loyal and senioremployees; and so on. Completion of the questionnaire resulted in the calculation of a GNSScore (See Table I).

Pust workshop 0 Questionnaire

Approximately 6 months after the completion of the workshop. participants responded to thepost-workshop questionnaire. This included demographic items (items \-1 1;" and post-workshop outcomes (items 12-\8 shown in Table 1. in the results section), Respondents wereasked to rate the items on a 5 point Likert scale (I being Strongly Disagree and 5 StronglyAgree).

The subjects were forty-nine male and female studc nts (twenty-four males and twenty-fivefemales) in the Graduate School of Business at UTS who enrolled in the workshop in the firstand second semester (luring 1999. Their ages ranged rrorn mid-twenties to mid-forties: then:were a mixture of local and international students. The participants came from live groups eachwith different facilitators. Sixty-five per cent ofthe participants were born overseas, and 6S percent were permanent residents in Australia.

The pre-workshop questionnaire was distributed to students and collected during the lIrst twointroductory days or the program. The Post Workshop Questionnaire was sent to students somethree months after the completion of the workshop.

RESULTS

Means and standard deviations for the pre and post-workshop questionnaires are shown inTables I and 2 respectively.

Table 1: Prc-Worshop Questionnaire- Means, SO's and Relationship to Trieoretical ..Discussion

Re,latioJl to theorr, Mean SD N

Possible stressors 4.27 (29 494.33 1.37 483.5 I 1.53 494.80 1.32 494.84' 1.42 493.96 1.7\ 49

(I< iecou 1994), 4.47 1.67 49(Ancshensel 1992.) 4.73 1.69 '·'49

Critical incident (Kiecott 4.00 1.53 491994), Psychological stress(Lazarus and Folkman 1984)Self esteel11 (Deci and Ryan 5.00 1.21 491995, McKay and Fanning1987, Wells and Marswell1976).General cornpetenc:e system 4.84 1.36 49

I Barriers to aclli-ev-I~'n-g~l~it:~e'goals-:..:='") --~I-nequitable rewards

'STRESSORS

3 __ ~E.:.:x.:..ce~s,;.s..;iv..::.e....:d:..:e..;.;n.:.:la_n_d_s,--_'I' Insufficient demands

5 Frustration of role exp-e-ct-,,-"ti-on--6 Experience of acute life events7 Structural support for dealing

with stress-8--- Social support for dealing with

STressPsychological distress

Feelings of self-worth

II feeling that one i~,f,=u.:..:lfi.:..:ll.:..:n.:..n.=:g__ ~::...:..._.:..:....:~;.;;....._

09/04 '02 TUE 15:16 FAX 61 2 96859593 SCHOOL OF EMPLOYMENT REL ~016

An llll(7~\'Sis of'Factnrs I/!/Illellcing Skills LC(1l"11ingand Personal Chang« II

important and central Skilil1l::r(1995).commitments in one's life.

12 Feeling of control over one's Locus ot"control (Rotter 5.16 1.07 49own outcomes. 1966, Seligman 1994),

13 Feedback before the wo!:kshop (K',ecolt 19(4) - "impetus to 3.49 1.46 49leading to feelings of lower change". Stages of change:perceived self-competence in (Prochaska et al. 1992a:particu lar areas. Prochaska. DiClemente. and

Norcross. 199::!b)-Contemplation stage

]4' [:eedback befoi:e the workshop (Kiccou /1)94) "Impetus to 3.49 1.46 49lending to unfavourable self change" Reflected appraisalscomparisons with others. and social comparisons

(Gecas 1991)15 Perceived impormilce or acting (Kiecolt lC)cj4) - "dedsiol1 to 5.41 1.24 32

on the feedback received prior to change". Stages of changethe workshop and to learn new (Prochaska •.•;,al, 19°2<1:ways or doing things. Prochaska. DiClemente, and

Norcross. 1992b)-Preparation stage.

1(; Belief that one is pe,:sonally Causal attribution' (Weiner 4.80 1.43 49responsible for the feedback 1985).received.

17 Belieftiiat one cUli"contrul those Locus or control TRotter 5.22 1.37 49aspects of behaviour which have 1966. Seligman 19(4).resulted in the reed back

-18-'~ Belief that s~lr change is Seli:'dlieacy (Baudura 1986. 5.8if' 1.25 49'-possible Maddux (995). ---i9 Clear identification'of behaviour Stages or change: ri'rochaska 4.90 1.69 49patterns to change prior to the et al, (1992a: Prochaska.workshop, DiClemente, and Norcross.

1992b). Contemplation stage;Kiecott • "impetus to change"

20" Perceived ili1pOnance ot' Stages of'cIHmge: Prochaska 6.11 .81 40changing patterns of behaviour et al. (1992i1: Prochaska.identified in 19 DiClemente, and Norcross.

I992b). Preparation stage:

Belief that benefi'ts or self ..Kiecotr - "impetus to change".

21 Stages of change (Prochaska 6.06 1.23"49""change outweigh the costs et al, 1992a: Prochaska,

DiClemente. and Norcross,.!992b) - Preparatio~~stage.

COMBINED CROWn ..• 5.1\ .70 49NEED STRENGTH

".,.

09/04 '02 Tlm 15:17 FAX 61 2 96859593

/8 Morris Abraham and Robert Connor

SCHOOL OF EMPLOYMENT REL III017

Table 2: Post Workshop Items - Means and SO's

NItem item descriptionThe wo,"kshopprovIdeif;---------.....,-,::------,=-

12 Clear direction for improvement 3.96 .82 494.00 .\54 493 ,9"ft'8--- .8';";:O;---~4:-:::9"""

Mean

13 Transferable skills14 Motivation to use'-s.,....k"'"ill,....s---- ---

___ 1,....5,.--.----"S,.;.ig::...nilicantchanges in life ". _16 Changes that were stablc and lasting

----17=---...-,0="t-:-l\-el:5 commented on behavioural changesIs I walltecj~;; ch~nges but did iiot

3.71 .71 493.5 I .68 493.09 .95 492.45 .98 49

A comparison of post-workshop item scores with the pre-workshop item scores yielded thestatistically significant correlations shown in Table 3.

Table 3: Significant Correlations Between Pre and Post-Workshop (Outcome) Items

Post-Workshop Item Descrlption(Item No)

p-Pre-Workshop ItemDescription, (hem No) AndRelevant Hypothesis

r-

The workshop provided me withmotivation to use the skills I learned( 14)workshop provided me with CI cleardirection for change that I might maketo improve my personal effectiveness(4)

Perceived level or barriers toach ieving life goals. ( I )Hypothesis 7Insufficient de-m-a-n--;u--;r:-ro-n-)-w-o-r-;-k-o-r-----:.4~0,.----;.O:-:0:-:5,....

other environmental sources (4)Hypothesis 7 ,

-.30 ,038

The workshop provided me withmotivation to USl:: the skills I learned( 14)

As a result of participating; in theworkshop, I made significant changesin my personal/professional life. (15)

Insufficient demand from work orother env ironmental sources (4)Hypothesis 7

Insufficient demand from work 01'

other environmental sources (4)Hypothesis 7

.45 .001

.29 .041

As a result of participating in theworkshop, the changes I made werestable and lasting - not just transient( 16)

To what extent did feedback beforethe workshop lead you toexperience lower perceivedcompetence in a particular area?(13) Hypothesis 5

-,36 .011

As a result of participating in theworkshop, I made significant changesin my personal /professional life (IS)

To what extent do you believe thatself-change is possible? (18)Hypothesis 2

.31 .029

To what exte,it-d""o-.-yo-r-I.,-b-el:-:-ie-v-e-t.,-h-at----.""2""9---::0'"'4"":"1-self-change is possible" (18)Hypothesis 2

I wanted to make changes but did notdo so (18)

I wanted to make changes but did notdo so (18)

.006Before the workshop. to whatextent have ycu clearly identifiedany specific patterns of behaviourthat you would like to change (19)Hypothesis 5

-.39

The workshop provided me with a .43How important is it Cor you to .005

09/04 '02 11m 15:17 FAX 61 2 96859593 SCHOOL OF EMPLOYMENT REL llJ018

.·In Analysis '1Factors /1I}"'/(:II('in1' Skills Learning and Personal Change J 9

clear direction for change that Imightmake to improve my personaleffectiveness (4)

change the specific patterns ofbehaviour Identified in item 19?(20) Hypothesis 6

The workshop provided me with themotivation to use the skills I learned( 14)

How important is it for you tochange the specific patterns ofbehaviour idcntifled in item 19'1(20) Hypothesis 6

.37 ,018

Lastly, correlations of CrNS scores with particular item scores III the post-workshopQuestionnaire are shown in Table 4 below.

Table 4: Signilic~lnt Correlations ofGNS with Post-Workshop Items and RelevantHypotheses

Outcome Item Description (Item No) ~HI<IRelated IIYilothcs;s (r = ) (p = )The workshop provided me with a clear direction for change that Imight make to improve Illy personal effectiveness (4) Hypothesis3

,37 009

As a result of participating in the workshop, I made sigliificllntchanges in my personal/professional life, (15) Hypothesis 4

.30 .037

" wanted to make changes but did not do so (18) Hypothesis 4 -,30 ,036

DISCUSSION

Hypotheses relating to competency factors

Hypothesis I

There appeared to be little direct support for Hypothesis I. Neither the motivation to change northe making of signiflcant post-workshop changes appears to be related to participants' generalfeeling of self-esteem 01' self-efficacy,

Hypothesis 2

There appeared to be support for Hypothesis 2, Those participants who anribureresponsibilityof life events to themselves (locus of control, internal attribution) will usually have a strongbelief in the possibility of self-change. Participants' beliefs in the possibility of self-changewere negatively correlated with wanting to make post-workshop changes, but not doing so.

The correlation between feedback prior to the workshop leading to an experience of lowerperceived competence. and belief that changes are not stable and lasting was negative (-.36, p =.011). One of the main influences in life that help us acquire our sense of self-efficacy is socialpersuasion (Bandura, 1986), Feedback from others forms part of this social persuasion. Suchfeedback can reduce perceived self-efficacy and can therefore be said to have acted as a negativefactor in the case of the participants who did not sec any changes from the workshop as stableand lasting, In addition, research has shown that reflected appraisals and social comparisonsinfluence self-esteem levels (Gecas, 199 I) and the decision to change,

One the other hand, the correlation between making significant changes and belief in thepossibility of change (.31. p '-', 029) may indicate thnt participants who believed that self-change

09/04 '02 Tlffi15:17 FAX 61 2 96859593 SCHOOL OF EMPLOYMENT REL I4J 019

20 Morris Abraham and Robert Connor

is possible also made significant changes in their personal and/or professional life as a result ofthe workshop. This is consistent with the correlnrion between the importance of changingidentified patterns prior to the workshop and having a clear direction for change as a workshopoutcome (.43, p ~, .(05), as well as having the motivation '0 change (.37,p =. 0 I S) .. '

The negative correlations between wanting to make changes but not doing so and other variablessuch as believing that change is possible (-.29, p=. 041): identifying patterns of behaviour forchange prior to the workshop C-39. p ." .006); and the Combined GNS SCOre (.30, p =. 036)indicate thm high scores on wanting to make changes but not doing so. may relate topurticipants" beliefs in their competency and their inability to control the outcomes of theiractions. In this case. the workshop experience was 11l1l enough to lead some participants to seechange as an option or possibility.

Hypotheses relnting tll growth-need strength

Hypothesis 3 and .j

The above hypotheses an: clearly supported by the research, Significant correlations ofGNS areobtained with Items '1.15 and IS of the pre-workshop questionnaire as shown in Table 4.

HYPOTHESES RELATING TO MODELS OF Cl'IANGI:~

Hypothesis 5

From Table 3 it can be seen that there is positive support' for hypothesis 5. The identification-ofspecific patterns of behaviour for change prior to the workshop is negatively correlated with"wanting to make changes but not doing so." This clearly supports the contemplation andpreparation phases of change (Prochaska et al., 199:2a; Prochaska et al .. 1992b). As previouslydiscussed, during this contemplation stage people become aware that there is a problem, but arenot yet committed to Changing. The preparation stage includes intention to change and somebehaviour criteria relevant to the problem,

The results also lend support to Kiecort's (1994) model of change, In the first stage of thismodel. the stressors and life events lead to unfavourable reflected appraisals, lower self-esteem.perceived competence. and unfavourable social comparisons (Questionnaire items 13.14). Thisin tum may lead T.O reduced levels of self-efficacy, self-esteem and authenticity. leading to animpetus to change (stage 2 of the model).

One of the main influences in life that help us acquire our sense of self-efficacy is socialpersuasion (Bandura, 1986). Feedback from others can reduce perceived self-efficacy and cantherefore be said to have acted as a factor in the case of the participants who did not see anychanges from the workshop as stable and lasting, The correlation between feedback prior to theworkshop and belief that changes are not stable and lasting was negative (-.36, P "".0 II). Inaddition, research has shown that reflected appraisals and social comparisons influence self-esteem levels (Gccas, 1991) and the decision to change.

Hypothesis 6

There was reasonable SUppOIl for Hypothesis 6 n::g.ardillg the importance allocated by theparticipant to changing patterns identified before the workshop. The importance allocated tochanging patterns correlates with the direction and motivation for change within the workshop.Again this relates the models of change discussed under hypothesis 5. Note that the importance

U~/U4 '02 Tlm 15:18 FAX 61 2 96859593 SCHOOL OF EMPLOYMENT REL I4J 020

.·/n AIIL7(v.•.is of facI""'" Itl/I/li!I/I.'il1!! .<-;killsLearning and Personal Chang» 21

of identifying specific patterns for behaviour prior to the workshop significantly correlated withthe direction and motivation for change, but with participants actually making significantpersonal/professional change following the workshop.

Hypotheses relating tu Stress and Support Factors

Hypothesis 7

Perceived barriers to achieving life goals were negatively correlated with the motivation to usethe skills learned in the workshop. Insufficient demand from work or other environmentalsources was positively correlated with dear direction for change. motivation for change andachievement of significant post-workshop changes. This clearly lends support to Hypothesis 7that "the higher the reported barriers to achieving ("1':;'S life goals and/or the greater thecompeting demands (time pressures) reported in the participant's life, the lower die motivationto translate workshop skills to outside practice.

The negative correlation between perceived frustration of goal achievement due to barriers andmotivation to usc the skills learned from the workshop can be related to conceptual issues ofself-efficacy and self-fulfilling prophesies. Seligman's (1994) that belief' in human plasticity canbecome a self-Iulfilling prophecy. On the other hand, seeing oneself as "frustrated at everyturn' may reduce the belief in one's own ability to achieve goals, thus reducing self-efficacylevels.

The positive correlations between insufficient demand from work or other environmentalsources, with outcome variables such as the provision of a clear direction in the workshop,having the motivation to use the skills learned; and ll1;ikirlg significant changes in life as a resultof attending the workshop. may also be related to an increased belief in self-efficacy. There wasalso a negative corrclarlon between insufficient demands from work and wanting to makechanges but not doing so. though this correlation is not statistically significant (.25, p» ...OR4).

This may indicate people with higher levels of self-efficacy, need to be challenged more and thatthe most functional self-efficacy judgements Me those that slightly exceed a person'scapabilities, because they lead people to set challenging goals for self-development (Ban dura,1986). This may also be supported by the correlation ,.If the Ccmbined GNS score with havingclear direction for change from the workshop ( ..37, p=. 009) and also with having madesignificant changes after tile workshop (.30, p. =. 037) Those who set the goal of self-changemay have therefore been more receptive to the information/experiences of the workshop.

Hypothesis 8

There was no support lor the hypothesis that participants who reported higher levels of structuraland social support would be more motivated to continue making efforts at self-change followingthe workshop. It appears that the prevalence of social (lndlor siructural support is less importantfor motivating change than other factors such as (01) the clear identification or dysfunctionalpatterns prior to the workshop (b) the belief that it W,IS important to change these patterns (c) astrong internal locus of control and a clear associated belief in the possibility of self-change and(d) high GNS.

CONCLUSION

In summary, the findings from our research show that positive and lasting self-change fromsuch experiential workshops as described in this paper are most likely in those participants who:

09/04 '02 Tlm 15:18 FAX 61 2 96859593 SCHOOL OF EMPLOYMENT REL ~021

21 Morris Abrahalll and Rober: Connor

I. Believe in the possibility of self-change

2. Have a high growth-need strength

3. Clearly identified dysfunctional patterns of behaviour that they wanted [0 change priorto the workshop

4. Arc clearly committed to changing these patterns of behaviour and see the workshop asan opportunity to do so.

5. Have lower reported barriers to achieving oues lire goals and the prevalence of a lessstressful environment where participants could attempt to translate workshop teamingto their lives.

The implications from this research are that any conditions or strategies. which enhance theabove factors. are likely to optimise participant 1\::11'11 ing both within the workshop and in theworkplace. Further research could focus strategies which could influence these factors,

REFERI~NCES:

Abraham, M. and Connor. R. (I~J97), An Intensive 'I-'(,'/(s!1opRased Approacfrjor DevelopingManagement Skills. UTS. Faculty of Business Working Paper Series. June.

Abramson, L.Y., Seligman, M.E.P. and Teasdale, J.D. (1978). 'Learned Helplessness inHumans: Critique and Reformulation', Journal IJr~bnonual Psychology, R7( I ): 49-74.

Aneshcnsel, C.S. (1992). 'Social Stress: Theory and Research'. Annual Revi~w ofSociology, 18:15-38.

Argyris, C. and Schon, f).A. (1978), Organisational Learning. Reading. M.A.: Addison-Wesley.Bandura, A. (1977), Social Leaming Theory. Prentice Hall.Bandura, /I.. (1986), Soclal Foundations of Thought arul Action: A Social Cognitive Theory.

Englewood Cliffs. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.Bandera, A. (1989). . Perceived Self. Efficacy in the Exercise of Personal Agency', The

Psychologist, October: 411-424.Bandura. A. (1995). 'Exercise of Personal and Collective Efficacy in Changing Societies', in A.

Bandura (ed.), Self-Efficacy in Changing Societies. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Bigelow J.D. (I 995), 'Teaching Managerial Skills: 1\ Criuque and Future Directions', Journal ofManagement Education, 19(3): 305·32.

Bigelow, J.D. (199Ci), 'Management Skill Teachers Speak Out', Journal 0.( ManagementEducation, 20(3): 298-3 I R.

Brown, J.D. and McGill. K.L. (1989), 'The Cost of Good Fortune: When Positive Life-EventsProduce Negative Health Consequences', Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,57(6): 1103-1110.

Bruch, M.A. (1997), 'Positive Thoughts or Cognitive Balance as a Moderator of the NegativeLife Events-Dysphoria Relationship: A Re-examination", Cognitive Therapy andResearch, 21(1): 25-38.

Carlopio, J., Andrewartha, G. and Armstrong, H. (200 I), Developing Management Skills.Second Edition, Prentice Hall: Australia.

Com pas, RE., Banez, G.A., Malcamc, Y, and Worsham, N. (1991), 'Perceived Control andCoping with Stress: A Developmental Perspective'. Journal of Social Issues, 47(4): 23-34.

09/04 '02 TIlE 15:18 FAX 61 2 96859593 SCHOOL OF EMPLOYMENT REL

..tn Analysis u{F"CIQI's hljl",·" •..",g Skill" l.eurning and Personal Change 23

Deci, EL and Ryan. R.M. (1995). 'Human Autonomy: The Basis 1\)1'True Self-Esteem', inM.B. Kernis (ed.). Efficacy. Agency. and .),dj-:t;slc·(;:I7I, Nl.:W York: Plenum Press.

Fiol. C.M. and Lyles. M.A. (1985), 'OI'gani~atiolU\1Learning". Academy. o] Management Revtew.10(4): 803·813.

Gecas, V. (1991). 'The Self-Concept as a Basis for ,1 Jhl!OIY of Motivation', in J.A. Howard andP.L. Callero (eds.), The Se/j-SociIJIY Dynamic: Cognition. f,m()tinl1,(lnd Action.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hackman. R.J., Oldham G.. Jansen. R. and Purdy. K. (l97S). 'A New Strategy for Job£l1richriu:nl' .Colifomia Management Review, I7(-I): 57.71.

Herzberg, f. (1968). "One More Time: How do you Motivate E111ployel.:s'?'.Harvard BusinessReview. Jan-Feb.

Kanter, R,M, (1989). "The New Managerial Work', NUl'i'ar" {f:!silJr1sS Review, 671,6): 85-92 ..Kiecclr, K.J. (1994), 'Stress and the Decision to Chall.~~ Oneself A Thecrerrca] Model'. Social

Psychology Quarfl:,rZv. 57( 1): 49-63.Krantz, J. and Gilmore. T, (1990). 'The Splitting vI' L';'ld.:t·ship and Mnnngement asa Social

Defense', Human Relations. 43(2): 183-204.Lazarus, R.s., and Folkman. S. (19M). Stress, Appraisa}, and Coping, New York: Springer

Publishing Company.Lefcourt, H.M. (l9S0). 'Personality and Locus OfCIlI1U·Ol'. in J, Garber. and M.E.P. Seligman,

(eds.), Human Helplessness: Theoryand AppliculilJl1S. New York: Academic Press.Lcfcourt, H.M. (ed.) /.19R4). Research with IhIJ Locns (!/('o/7lrol Construct, Vol l~). New York:

Academic ('l'ess,Lefeourt, H.M. (199:2). 'Durability and hnpnc10f tl1\: Locus of Control Construct',

Psychological 8ulleJin, (12 (3); 411-4 (4.McKoy, M. anti Fanning. P. (1987), Self-Esteem: .1 Pl'rlwm Program of Cognitive Techniques

for Assessing. !mproviI1g, and Maintaining Lolli' Self-Esteem. Oakland: New HarbingerPublications,

Maddux, J.E. (1995) .. Self-Ertieacy Theory: An In{Toducrion', in J.E. Maddux (cd.). Self-fJJicac}'. Adapunton, and AdilL.ttlllem: Th(,'(I/:I'. Research, and App!icClfiun, New York;Plenum Press.

Maslow, A.H. (1987). Motivation and Personuitty. 3rt! EtI.. New York; Harper Collins. lst Ed,1954.

Mikulincer, M. (199..1). Human Learned Helplessnes»; ..IC'oping Perspective:: New York:Plenum.

Millward. L.J. anti Brewerton, P.M. (200 I), 'Ps)'cl1ologicnl Conlracts:6mployee Relations forthe Twenty-Firs! Century'. in I. Robertson illH! C Cooper (eds.), Personnel Psychologyand HRM, Wiley. Chichester.

Pearlln, 1...1.,Lieberman, M.A., Menagharr, E.G .. and Mullml. J.T. {I 98 I), 'The Stress Process',Journal cJ[HI!Llllf1 ond Socta! Behavior, 22: 337-35(>,

Phares. E. J. (1991), Introduction to Personality. 3rd rei .. New York: Harper Collins.Prochaska, J.n. and DiCkl'l'lente, C.C. (1992). 'Stage's orCh'lng.ein the Modification of Problem

Behaviors'. ill [VI. Hersen, R.M. Eisler and P,M. Miller (Eds.), Progress in BehaviorMod{!'rt.;J;ltiO/'l,Sycamore, II; Sycamore Press, ('ire!;! in Prochaska et al., 1992b. 01'. cit.

Prochaska, J.O., Diclemen«; C.C., and Norcross, J.c. (1992a). 'In Search of [he Structure ofChange', in Y. Klar; J,D. Fisher, J,M. Chinsk)' and A. Nadler (Eds.), Se!j'Challge: SociCJIPsychological and Clinicai Perspectives, New York: Spl'illger-Verillg,

Prochaska, lO" Diclemente, C.C., and Norcross, .I.e. (1993b). 'In Search of How PeopleChange' ,Amel'iL'L1II P.lyc!7o!ngisi, 47(9), 1102· 111<1.

Rotter J.B, (1966). 'Generalized Expectancies ff'l'!ntcmaI versus External Control ofReinforcement', Psychological Monographs. SO(I). Whole no. 609. Cited in Phares, E.J.(1991), Introduction to Personality: 3rd Ed .. N",,,' York: Harper Collins.

Seligman. M.E.P. (l91) I). Learned Optimism. Randorn House. Australia.

09/04 '02 TUE 15:19 FAX 61 2 96859593 SCHOOL OF EMPLOYMENTREL 121023

1.+ Morris Abraham and Robert Conno»

Seligman, M.E.P. (1994). What You Can Change (//'1(1 11-'11£/1YOIl Can't: The Complete Gutde toSliccessful Sttlj-Imp/,ovf:tmllnt. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Skinner, E.A. (199.5). Perceived Control. Motivel/illll, ,11,£1Coping: Individlf(:zl DifJerences andDevelopment Series Vol. 8., Thousand 011ks: Sa!~I!.

Smith. V. (1997). 'New Forms of Work Organisatieu . Annual Reviltw o/SOCiology. 23: 315-339.

Trumbull, R. lind Appley. M.H. (1986), 'A Conceptual Model for the Examination of StressDynamics'. in M.II. Appley, and R. Trumbull, I:Lls.). Dynamics of Stress: Physiological,Psychological, and Social Perspectives. New York: Plenum Press.

Vaill. P.B. (l 989). fti/'I/7/.1ging as a Performing Art. San Francisco: Jessey-Bass.Vecchio, R.P., Hearn. 0. and Southey. G. (1996). ()rg(l/7;,wliOlwl Behaviour. 2nd Ed .• Sydney:

Harcourt Brace.Weiner. B. (1985). 'An Anriburlonal Theory or Achievement Motivation and Emotion',

Psychological Rt·vicw. 92: 548-573.Wells, L.E. lind Marwell, Cr. (1976), Sd/£SICCIII: tts ('olll'epllJali=ation and Measurement.

Volume 20. Sage Library of Social Research. Beverley Ifills: Sage Publications.

09/04 '02 Tlm 15:12 FAX 61 2 96859593 SCHOOL OF EMPLOYMENT REL @002

Vol. 7, No.1, 2001

ARTICLES

The Cost and Benefits Model of Union Membership Chew Soon Beng andRosalind Chew

i( An Analysis of Factors influencing Skills Learning and(. Personal Change

Morris Abraham andRobert Connor

Flipping the Last Burger: An Examination of the ReasonsEmployees Leave the Fast Food Industry

The Transformation of Workplace Culture

Anthony Gould

Steve Jaynes

The Secondary Labour Market And Employee Protection:Employment Relations in New Zealand and Denmark ill the1990s

Erling Rasmussen andColm Mcl.aughlin

Management Employment Relations Strategy:The Case of Retailing

Dennis Mortimer

REVIEWS Russell Lansbury

Jack Eaton, Comparative Employment Relations: AnIntroduction

Stephen Decry and Richard Mitchell (eds) EmploymentRelations: Indlvidualisation and Union Exclusion, anInternational Study

Brian Towers

ISSN 1324-1125

09/04 '02 Tlm 15:13 FAX 61 2 96859593 SCHOOL OF EMPLOYMENT REL @003

Subscription Costs

The International Employment Relations Review is a publication or the International Employment RelationsAssociation. The Review is provided to Association members as pan or their membership. Non-members maysubscribe to the Review; subscription rates arc:

A$40 per year for individual subscriptions (A$SO overseas)A$25 per year for studentsA565 per year 1'01' institutions

Membership and subscription requests should be addressed to the Treasurer, International EmploymentRelations Association, Mr Colin Innes. School of Management, University of Western Sydney, Locked Bag1797, Penrith South DC. NSW 17')7. Australia.

Articles and Editorial

Articles submitted for consideration for publication in the journal and any editorial matters should be sent to:Keri Spooner. Acting Editor. International Employment Relations Review. School of Management. Universityof Technology Sydney, PO Box 123. Broadway NSW 2007" Australia: telephone: 61 (02) 9369 3531.

Published by International Ernploymcnt Relations Association

ISSN 1324-1125

09/04 '02 Ttm 15:13 FAX 61 2 96859593 SCHOOL OF EMPLOYMENT REL l4J 004

International

Employment Relations

Review

Vol. 7, No.1, 2001

The international Employment Relations Review is tne joumal or the International EmploymentRelations Assoc iut ion.

Material published in the International Employment Relations Review is copyright protected andcannot be reproduced without permission or the Editor of the Review,

(DllllernaTional Employment Rclauous Review 200 I

ISSN 13:!4-11:!5

09/04 '02 Tl~ 15:13 FAX 61 2 96859593 SCHOOL OF EMPLOYMENT REL @005

International Employment Rclatinns Review

Acting Editor

Keri Spooner. University of Technology Sydney

F.ditori:ll Board

Sam Aryee, Hong Kong Baptist UniversityDonu-Sunz Cho, Seoul National UniversityIn:n; Cho~, Chinese University of Hong KongPaul Harris. University of WaikatoKazuhiko Hayashi, Nihon UniversityYueh-Chin Hwang. National Ombudsman, TaiwanDong Ki Kim. Korea UniversityJean Lee. National University of SingaporePaul A McGavin. Australian Defence Force AcademySusan rvlcGrath-Champ. University of SydneyRichard Morris, University of Western Sydney, NepeunDennis Mortimer, University of Western Sydney, NcpeanNg Sek Hong. University of Hong KongBarbara Pocock. University of AdelaideGordon Stewart, University of Central QueenslandLeonie V. Still, Edith Cowan UniversityRaymond J. Stone, Hong Kong Baptist UniversityKen Wright. Royal Melbourne lnstirute, of Technology

U9/04 '02 Tlm 15:13 FAX 61 2 96859593 SCHOOL OF EMPLOYMENT REL

Internationul Employment Rctatious ReviewVol. 7, Nil. 1,2001

Table of Contents

ARTICLES

The Cost and Benefits Model of Union Membership

An Analysis of Factors Influencing Skills Learning andPersonal Change

Flipping the Last burger: An Examination of the ReasonsEmployees Leave the Fast Food Industry

The Transformation or Workplace Culture

The Secondary Labour Market And Employee Protection:Fmployment Relations in New Zealand and Dcnmnrk in the)9905

Management Employment Relations Strategy:The Case of Retailing

REVIRWS

Jack Eaton. Comparative Employment Relations: AnIntroduction

Stephen Deery and Richard Mitchell (cds) EmploymentRelations: Individualisation and Union Exclusion, anInternational Study

Notes to Contributors

Chew .'100/7 liengand Rosalind Chew

Morris Abrahamand Robert Connor

Anthony Could

Steve Jaynes

Erling Rasmussen(/I1(J

Colin Mcl.aughlin

Dennis Mortimer

Russell LOllS/JIll)'

Brian Towers

@006

9

25

47(,3

8/

95

96

99