I am interested in gathering information on how Australian
organisations and leaders compare to other countries particularly the
US, UK and Europe. How do Australian organisations rate on the world
stage? Where do Australian leaders stand in comparison to the rest of
the world? Information such as what percentage of Australian
organisations are still managed in a command and control style? What
are the strengths and weaknesses of Australian organisations and
leaders? Or any reports and/or statistics that draw these and other
sorts of comparisons.

I am also interested in finding out how effectively Australian
organisations are preparing the next generation of Gen X leaders to
take over from their babyboomer superiors. Are organisations aware of
the need to provide special training programs to do this or are they
depending on the organic growth of these people through the
organisation? What percentage of organisations are conducting these
types of programs? Are there any other reports/statistics on this
topic? Any opinions on the readiness of Australia’s future corporate
leaders to take over in the next 5-10 years.

---

Request for Question Clarification by umiat-ga on 10 Jul 2003 19:00 PDT

holdie-ga,

 I would love to have a go at your question. However, as it now
stands, it is extremely broad. There are so many organisations in
Australia and around the world that it would be very hard to pick a
starting point.

 Can you clarify any specific types of organizations you might want to
consider? It is very hard to compare organisations unless they are in
the same arena.

 If you have a particular knowledge of Australia, perhaps you can pick
out a select few (or types) that you would like compared to other
similar organisations in the US and Europe.

 Please respond even if the question is locked. It will provide me, or
another researcher, a better opportunity to compile a clear answer.

 Thank you.

 umiat

---

Request for Question Clarification by umiat-ga on 10 Jul 2003 23:23 PDT

holdie-ga,

 So far I have compiled some information on the different management
styles of Australian business leaders in comparison to some other
countries, an article pertaining to the continued (but slowly
changing) existence of "Command and Control" management strategy
(though no percentage number), a study highlighting how Australian
charitable organizations can learn from the mistakes of US
organizations, and Australia's ranking among a host of countries as
depicted by the guidelines of an international organization.

 However, I have no clearcut path as of yet and cannot work very
efficiently. Are you talking primarily about business corporations,
groups such as educational organizations, government organizations,
charitable groups, etc?

 If you can be more specific, it will help me immensely:)

 Thanks again.

Hello, holdie-ga!

 Your question was extremely broad and quite a challenge. I must admit
I was up most of the night and half of today working on an answer. I
am relieved to say I believe I finally found the path I needed to
pursue in order to compile some answers for you.

 I was unable to find specific percentage numbers for certain aspects
of your question, but the references certainly provide good statistics
and coverage concerning Australian leadership, the move toward
continual change and improvement, and the growing trend to identify
and educate potential leaders to take over in the future. There are
also some statistics relating to Australia's global ranking in regards
to management and leadership.



===============================================================
HAS ORGANIZATIONAL LEADERSHIP CHANGED SINCE THE KARPIN REPORT AND ARE
YOUNG LEADERS BEING PREPARED TO TAKE OVER LEADERSHIP ROLES FROM THEIR
PREDECESSORS?
===============================================================

 The Australian Government addressed the issue of organizational
management and leadership in 1995 with issuance of the "Enterprising
Nation - Report of the Industry Task Force on Leadership and
Management Skills (the Karpin Report)." Among other issues, the report
emphasized the necessity for improved management skills among
organization leaders, which would, in turn, provide the skill to move
Australia into a better economic global position.

 The report also expressed the necessity for current leaders to create
a learning environment within their organizations so that younger
employees might be trained and educated for leadership and management
roles.

==

From "Preparing managers and leaders for 2010: educational
implications," by Jennifer Nevard. Advanced paper prepared for the
Australian Association for Research in Education Conference Adelaide.
(1998)
http://www.aare.edu.au/98pap/nev98399.htm#b1

"It was argued that better skilled managers would create business
which would, in turn, stimulate export activity. Two additional
benefits were to ensue. These were that better educated and trained
managers would increase the pace of workplace restructuring and that
improved business processes would produce increased productivity in
Australia's human and capital resources."

"It was considered that by the year 2010 it could be expected that an
Australian senior manager might be male or female, might not be of
English speaking descent and would have formal management or
leadership qualifications. The senior manager's career path would have
been characterised by diversity, having lived in two or more countries
and having managed workforces in countries with regulated and
deregulated economies."

"The scenario outlined by the Karpin Task Force was of an Australian
environment typified by rapid change, with limited term appointments
for senior managers in a results driven high pressured working
environment. It was also considered that Australia would have
competitive products and services if; productivity was improved, there
were technological enhancements to the way products and services
operated, and if Australia developed the ability to innovate
creatively and quickly. It was acknowledged that in prior
investigations of Australia's position in world markets there had been
too little consideration given to the manager's role in stimulating
the economy."

In its vision statement, the Karpin Report incorporated three
recommendations relating to learning. It stated that by 2010:

Selection of managers will be based upon knowledge and ability to
learn, to change and to innovate in the new marketplace;

Australian enterprises will cope with change and turbulence because of
their 'learning organisation' standard philosophy, and

Managers will create learning conditions for employees, the enterprise
as a whole, across individual business units, within and between
groups and between enterprises and their external environments.
Employees will be more motivated and skilled.

=====

 For specific recommendations in the Karpin Report regarding the
Education and Preparation of future leaders, please refer to the
section titled:

"Careers for the young in leadership and management." 



===================================================================
HOW MUCH ARE AUSTRALIAN ORGANIZATIONS DOING TO TRAIN YOUNG LEADERS? 
===================================================================

 The Australian Institute of Management has undertaken to follow up on
the extent of change within organizations seven years after the
release of the Karpin Report.

 Despite "anecdotal evidence of greatly increased management
development activity in Australia since the Report's
release........the Australian Institute of Management commissioned the
Management Development Practice study. The objective of the research
was to establish an empirical basis for understanding what is actually
being done in organisations in Australia to develop the country's
management talent and improve business performance."
http://www.aim.com.au/research/mdp.html

 The report, titled "Key Findings: Management Development Practice in
Australia." (2002) is available at
http://www.aim.com.au/research/AIM_mdp_keyfindings.pdf

 The reports concludes that Australian business management has
improved significantly since the 1995 Karpin Report and offers
encouragement that the businesses surveyed are representative of
widespread changes within Australian organizations.



===================================
TRENDS IN ORGANIZATIONAL LEADERSHIP
===================================

Further information on new trends in organizational leadership may be
found in

"Key Findings: Australian Business Leadership Survey." (2002)
http://www.aim.com.au/research/AIM_abls_keyfindings.pdf

(Note that no portion of the report may be reproduced without
permission)

 It is interesting to note, as the report states  that "Australian
executives generally rate their leadership styles more highly than
their counterparts overseas."

 The report covers findings on leadership styles, leadership by state
and organisational size, by gender, by age, tenure and seniority. The
encouraging move by executives toward transformational leadership is
highlighted. Recommendations for continued improvement in Australian
leadership include the identification of leadership qualities and
implementation of training programs at an early career stage.

 

===============================================================
COMPARING AUSTRALIAN MANAGEMENT TO OTHER COUNTRIES - HOW DO LEADERS
RANK?
===============================================================

From "Australia Developing World-Class Managers." RMIT Management.
http://www.rmit.edu.au/browse?SIMID=znazcsrgp7y8
 
 According to Professor David Karpin, Australia should have a group of
"world-class" business leaders by 2020.

"The quality of managers is getting better and the quality of leaders
is getting better, but we still have a long way to go," he says.
"Every one of our global competitors is moving forward, but by 2020
Australian managers will be world class.

"Professor Karpin, who headed the Karpin report into Australia's
business practices and management potential, was speaking at last
month's WREDO Networking Breakfast.

****
"Since the report was published in 1995, Australia has risen in the
world competitiveness rankings. It is now ninth ahead of Singapore,
Japan, Hong Kong and New Zealand. In 1996 Australia was 21st. The
most-competitive nation is Finland with the United States second."
*****

"For Australian management to reach world-class standards, a number of
things have to happen, Professor Karpin says."

These include: 

Positive community attitudes towards business enterprises, job and
wealth creation;
An international perspective by all Australians; 
A strong commitment to world competitive enterprises; 
A customer-comes-first attitude; 
State-of-the-art, quality infrastructure; 
A flexible, skilled, motivated and enthusiastic workforce.
 
"Our taskforce was on the right track, but we haven't seen all of our
recommendations taken up," he says. "Change needs to be driven by the
institutions and enterprises and to do this the workforce must have
the skills, capabilities and knowledge."

Problems which still plague Australian management are highlighted,
including "lack of strategic perspective; poor teamwork;
inflexibility; poor people skills; lacking self-management, which
leads to complacency."


===

"The Global Competitive Report 2002-2003" coupled with the
"Microcompetitive Competitive Index" may be accessed from the World
Economic Forum site at
http://www.weforum.org/site/homepublic.nsf/Content/Global+Competitiveness+Programme%5CReports%5CGlobal+Competitiveness+Report+2002-2003#Comp

The Country Ranking Charts for each index are available on the above
page, with links to the more extensive report.

The two reports provide an insight into how effectively Australia's
organizational leadership has effectively moved Australia into the
global arena.


The importance of the two Rankings taken together is explained in the
following article:

"USA Reclaims Top Ranking in Global Competitiveness Report 2002-2003."
World Economic Forum. (12 November 2002)
http://www.weforum.org/site/homepublic.nsf/Content/USA+Reclaims+Top+Ranking+in+Global+Competitiveness+Report+2002-2003


While the "The Growth Competitiveness Index (GCI) aims to measure the
factors that contribute to the future growth of an economy, measured
by the rate of change of GDP per person," the "Microeconomic
Competitiveness Index (MICI), aims to identify the factors that
underpin high current productivity and hence current economic
performance, measured by the level of GDP per person.

 ** It reflects microeconomic fundamentals, with one sub-index that
focuses on company sophistication and another on the quality of the
business environment.**

These factors explain why some countries can sustain a higher level of
prosperity than others.



===============================================
COMMAND AND CONTROL POLICIES STILL IN EXISTENCE
===============================================

From "Managing People and Organisational Change in Australian
Organizations," by Janice T. Jones and Terence Jackson.
http://www.ssn.flinders.edu.au/commerce/researchpapers/00-16.doc

Some excerpts:

Australian organisational characteristics:

The mean score of 3.05 for control orientation indicates a moderate
control orientation. This result, taken together with the desire
expressed by managers for significantly less control, yet belief that
organisations will continue in this direction, arguably, may add to a
growing body of literature suggesting that Australian business
continues to be demonstrate a "command and control" focus (Karpin
1995; Andersen Consulting cited in Clegg 1999; Kabanoff and Daly in
press). Kabanoff and Daly (in press) concluded that results such as
these support criticisms of Australian business culture, namely that
it is too top-down and inflexible in style.

Implications for the future:

For a considerable portion of the twentieth century, Australian
organisations have operated in a centrally controlled industrial
relations environment, protected from foreign competition by high
tariff barriers and benefited from high prices for exported
commodities (Kabanoff et al. in press). As a result, they have enjoyed
a comfortable, yet bureaucratically controlled existence. Drawing on
organizational theory (Burns and Stalker 1966; Mintzberg 1979),
Kabanoff et al (in press) suggest that "command and control" style
organisations endure and thrive in a relatively stable, predictable
and undemanding environment. They believe that Australia may have
provided a fertile breeding ground for this type of organization.
Furthermore, they acknowledge that these conditions have ceased and
moreover, are not likely to return in the future.

* Thus organizations are in the process of adapting to a more open and
competitive marketplace, with changes to organizational structures,
policies and practices (Dunphy and Stace 1990) designed to move
organizations away from "command and control" to a more performance
oriented, flexible system. *


Results in the present study suggest Australian organizations are in
transition. However, respondent's belief of a continued control
orientation raises questions about the efficacy of changes to
organizational structures, policies and practices, reportedly designed
to move organizations away from a "command and control" approach.
Future research should examine why a significant gap appears to exist
between the desire for less control, and the expected continued level
of control in the future; the implications of this continued control
orientation should also be examined


===


 A very similar paper by the same authors examines the Australian
managerial style of "Command and Control" a bit further by comparing
Australia to some other countries. (unfortunately, not the US, UK or
Europe!)


From "Managing People and Change: Comparing Organisations and
Management in Australia, China, India and South Africa," by Janice
Jones and Terence Jackson.
http://www.ssn.flinders.edu.au/commerce/researchpapers/01-5.doc


Excerpt from Abstract:

"This study investigates perceptions and attitudes of Australian,
Chinese, Indian and South African managers to managing people and
organisations. Comparisons between managers and organisations from
Australia and China, India and South Africa reveal cross-cultural
similarities and differences exist. While similarities exist with
other Anglo countries there are exceptions, including significant
differences between the direction of Australian management commitment
and China, India and South Africa. The implications of these
differences for international joint ventures are explored."

Excerpt from results:

"Summary results presented in Table 1 suggest that Australian
organisations are less control oriented than Chinese and South African
organisations, and compared to their Chinese and South African
counterparts, Australian managers believe less control is ideal.
However, they perceive little change to the current situation in the
future. Australian organisations are also more people oriented than
Chinese organisations, and compared to Chinese and Indian respondents,
managers perceive a stronger people orientation as ideal. Australian
organisations appear to be moving toward both a greater people and
results orientation in the future, in contrast to Indian
organisations."

Style of Organisational Management:

"Australian organisations appear to be more risk taking (and believe
this is more ideal) than Chinese organisations, more flexible than the
South Africans, and significantly more ethical than Chinese, Indian
and South African organisations. Australian managers believe an even
higher level of ethicality is ideal compared to their Chinese, Indian
and South African colleagues, and believe that their organisations are
moving is this direction in the future."

Operating Features:

Australian managers indicate a higher rate of organisational change
than Chinese and Indian managers, but express a desire for
significantly less change compared to the other nationalities in the
investigation.

Management Practices:

Australian managers rely less on hierarchy than do their Indian and
South African colleagues, and less on rank than do the Chinese, but
are on par with the other nationalities. They are less egalitarian
than their Indian and Chinese counterparts, but communicate and
provide information more openly. They are less confrontational than
Chinese and South African managers

Management Motivation:

Single item measures were used to compare differences in motivation
(Table 2). Australian managers are more motivated by autonomy and
uncertainty in their jobs than their Chinese and Indian colleagues,
and compared to the Indians, more motivated by personal development
opportunities. Interestingly, Australian managers believe that their
colleagues are less motivated by these opportunities. They are also
more motivated by achievement than are Indian managers. In contrast to
the Chinese, the Australians are significantly less motivated by
independence and control, and compared with the Chinese and South
Africans, less motivated by economic security. Finally, in contrast to
South African and Indian managers, they are less motivated by ambition
(recording the lowest level for these items of the countries in the
survey).

Management Commitment:

Table 2 also provides comparative results for the direction of
management commitment. Compared to their Chinese, Indian and South
African counterparts, Australian managers indicate a significantly
higher commitment to ethical principles with lower commitment to
business objectives regardless of means, and a lower commitment to
organisation, results, work and relatives.

Management Principles:

Australian managers have a higher internal and lower external locus of
control than Chinese, Indian and South African managers, and base
their decisions more on outcomes than South African managers, and less
on pre-set principles compared to Chinese and South African managers.
The Australians are the most trusting of employees of the nations
surveyed. Australian managers are more achievement oriented than their
Chinese and Indian colleagues, and significantly less status oriented
than managers from China, India and South Africa. However, they see
their management colleagues as more status oriented and less
achievement oriented than themselves

Conclusion (excerpt):

The management profiles developed in this study will be useful to
managers, both in Australia and offshore, where many Australian
companies increasingly do business, attempting to reconcile
differences in management approaches in the international context.
They may also aid in the development of management systems, structures
and practices that are consistent with the respective cultural values
and expectations. Furthermore, by extending our understanding of the
impact of national cultures and social systems upon both organisation
and management, Adler (1997) and Teagarden et al. (1995) argue that
management practices from developed countries can be appropriately
adapted and transferred to emerging countries.

=====


Some additional, and possibly irrelevant reading follows:	



==========================================================================
AUSTRALIA'S CHARITABLE ORGANIZATION LEADERSHIP LEARNING FROM U.S.
MISTAKES
==========================================================================

"Shortcomings in America's Federal Tax Regulatory Regime of Private
Foundations: Insights for Australia," by Nina J. Crimm. Professor of
Law. St. John's University.(2001)
http://www.atax.unsw.edu.au/research/ATAXDiscussionPaperNo5.pdf

The basic premise of this 39-page paper highlights the undesirable
taxation and regulatory impositions place upon US charitable
organizations. In order for Australian organizations to maintain the
"halo" effect they currently hold before the citizenry, the leaders
(present and future) of Australia's charitable organizations should
tread carefully to avoid America's mistakes.
  
This 39-page article is not to be cited without the author's
permission so I will have to leave it for you to read!



=============================================================================
WHERE DOES AUSTRALIA STAND IN COMPARISON TO COUNTRIES AROUND THE WORLD
IN ITS SUPPORT, DEFENSE AND PROMOTION OF DEMOCRATIC ORGANIZATIONS AND
PRINCIPLES?
============================================================================

Read "Defending Democracy: A Global Survey of Foreign Policy Trends
1992-2002." Centre for Democratic Institutions.
http://www.cdi.anu.edu.au/research_publications/research_downloads/DefendingDemocracyBriefSummary.pdf

The Survey of countries was conducted by the Democracy Coalition
Project, which was established in June 2001 "to build open democratic
societies supporting civil society coalitions around the world that
promote democratic reforms at home and abroad."

Out of the 40 countries measured and the four criteria considered,
Australia came out with a "Defending Democracy" rating of "Good",
placing it in the "company of countries such as Argentina, Brazil, the
Czech Republic, Poland, the United Kingdom and the United States."

The report provides links to the full executive summary, tables and
charts, detailed methodology and selected country reports.


===


 Well, holdie, I surely hope I have travelled in the right direction
to provide you with a helpful answer. If anything needs further
clarification, please don't hesitate to ask and I will try my best to
assist you if I am able!


 For now, though, I think I had better close my eyes for a bit :)


Sincerely,

umiat-ga 

Google Search Strategy
site:.au +shortcomings +organizations in Australia 
site:.au +"command and control" +percentage +organizations
site:.au +Percent +organizations using "command and control"
site:.au +preparing +Australia's new business leaders 
Karpin Report
+Ranking corporate leaders by +country

---

Request for Answer Clarification by holdie-ga on 13 Jul 2003 17:51 PDT

Hi! umiat-ga,
Thanks for your quick reply. Some good stuff here. I am focusing on
corporate organisations and the top 100-500 would be most interesting.
In regard to training young managers, I have not had time to dig into
the AIM report, but is there info on how effectively we are doing this
or are the comments general? I want to be able to do a media release
that speak to this issue as well as the leadership effectiveness of
Australian leaders as compared to the rest of the world. The study
comparing Australian managers to Asian countries was interesting, do
you think there is anything that includes the US (at least)?
Is thsi any help?
holdie-ga

---

Clarification of Answer by umiat-ga on 14 Jul 2003 23:45 PDT

Hello again, holdie!

 This continues to be a very broad subject with elements that are hard
to pin down. However, I have tried to find a few more references which
might provide some additional information.

 In terms of your question concerning the AIM report and training of
young leaders.....there are very specific statistics concerning
methods of training within organizations. However, they don't focus on
the age of the employee as much as the career level within the
organization. That is not to say that young leaders are not being
trained, however.

 As the following article reveals, corporate leaders are becoming
younger and younger. The Australian Institute of Management appears
very committed to training young leaders to become effective within
their organizations. I could not find any statistics on how effective
these programs are at this point in time, but time will tell. At any
rate, the commitment to training and mentoring is on the upswing
within a variety of Australian businesses.



TRAINING YOUNG BUSINESS LEADERS
===============================

The Australian Institute of Management shows a special commitment to
young leaders.

"Young Managers Train for the Future." Australian Institute of
Management. (Oct. 2001)
http://membernet.com.au/agenda/agenda_0110.pdf

 The Young Managers Program has been developed specifically to train
younger corporate leaders less than 35 years old.

 "Research shows that managers are gaining greater responsibilities
and more comprehensive job roles at a younger age."

"Much of this is driven by the IT and sales and marketing professions,
but there is also a strong younger manager trend in the professions
such as law and accounting," AIM Qld and NT Chief Executive Officer,
Carolyn Barker FAIM said.

"Team leaders, department managers, even divisional and group managers
are common titles for people up to 35 years old."

"Employers often have expectations that recruits come to the job with
an extensive experience base, and that just may not be true. There is
also the belief that being young means having boundless energy, but
young managers experience exactly the same personal challenges as
their older counterparts," Ms Barker said.

"Managing upward, managing older employees and managing careers are
three hot issues for young managers. That's why the Australian
Institute of Management has developed a program of services to suit
young managers' career growth needs.

"We operate in the knowledge society. That means people are paramount.
Leadership and management capability is now a recognized element of
business success," Ms. Barker said.

"It is important to nurture these skills in young managers who may
have secured the role but not developed general management
competencies," she said.




MANAGEMENT COMPARISONS - Australia and US
==========================================

"What do Mangers Like to Do? Comparing Women and Men in Australia and
the US," by Alison M. Konrad and Robert Waryszak. Australian Journal
of Management. (June 1997)
http://www.agsm.unsw.edu.au/eajm/9706/pdf/konrad.pdf

From the Abstract:

"The data base included 1,174 subjects from Australia and the US, most
of whom were working managers....Women and men in Australia and the US
showed highly similar rank-orderings of preferred managerial
activities, though some small gender and country differences in
average ratings were observed."

* This interesting article is worth reading in entirety. It is full of
predictions concerning managerial styles, charts, and ultimately,
results of the accuracy of the predictions.

   


ANALYZING BUSINESSES IN OTHER COUNTRIES
========================================	

 In the following study, Australian representatives visited 39
companies in different countries to analyze the ways in which
management deals with innovation. Businesses visited and analyzed were
from the following sectors: Food, Agribusiness, Business Development,
Chemical, Education,
Service, Computing, Medical, and Manufacturing. 


"Innovating Australia 2000 Study Tour Report," by Dr. K. Hastings.
Murdoch University. Rural Industries Resource and Development
Corporation.
http://www.rirdc.gov.au/reports/Ras/MS990-30.pdf

Excerpt from the Executive Summary:

"Innovation is often regarded as the single most important factor to
the long-term survival of a business. Thus, this research seeks to
understand how Australian agribusiness firms can foster innovation in
their firms.............

"The research used case study methodology for 39 sites across three
regions of Israel, United Kingdom/Europe and Canada/United States.

Excerpts from Introduction:

"Twenty individuals chosen from the farming community, agribusiness,
government and educational institutions across Australia visited
thirty-nine of the word's most innovative companies in Europe, Israel,
Canada and the United States, to learn the processes of innovation
adopted by these companies and the strategies they have recognized in
their product and industry developments."

Excerpts from Justification:

"Firstly, recent research indicates that Australia is trailing other
nations in the areas of innovation and new product development. ** The
study recommended that Australian companies have to implement
innovation management process in order to close the gap with other
leading nations such as the United States, Singapore and Germany. **

Research Questions:

How do firms build an innovative culture?
How do successful firms manage the process for innovation?
How do successful firms implement innovation?
What are the critical success factors for innovation?

Table 5:

Lists a series of innovative techniques that Australian firms should
adopt to foster innovation.




CHANGES WITHIN THE AUSTRALIAN WORKPLACE
=======================================

"Management, Organisational and Technological Change in Australian
Workplaces: Evidence from the AWIRS Data Sets," by Mark Rogers.
Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research.
(1998).
http://www1.ecom.unimelb.edu.au/iaesrwww/wp/wp98n11.pdf 

 This paper compares studies conducted in Australian business
organizations in 1990 and 1995, analyzing changes in management,
training, and other workplace issues.

 Some conclusions drawn:

 More workplaces are undergoing change in 1995 compared to 1990, and
are more likely to implement more than one change.

 "Formal training schemes and staff/appraisal evaluation are the most
popular management methods with, in 1995, approximately 60% of
workplaces using them. (Table 7)

 Although the extent of training in workplaces may have fallen
slightly between 1990 and 1995, it appears as though more training is
now directed at managers and less at professionals. (Table 11)


=====


 I hope these additional references provide some further sources of
helpful information. Because of the "generalness" of this subject, it
was very hard to pin down comparisons between business leaders. If you
were focusing on one industry, for instance, the research could have
been narrowed down to find some specific comparisons in leadership
styles and rankings.

 However, I do hope I have given you some good information to utilize.
If I can be of further help in the future, I would be delighted to
work with you again.

Sincerely,

umiat

Google Search Strategy
site:.au +management styles Australia vs. United States
comparing australian management to US management
site:.au +Australia +training +young +corporate leaders