Issues of management identity: attitudes to management within the Australian Institute of Management, 1940–73

Abstract

While a number of studies have considered the evolution of Australian business and management, less attention has been paid to the discourse used by Australian managers to conceptualise their identity as managers. This study of management discourse within the Australian Institute of Management (AIM) from 1940 up to 1973 does not, however, reveal a progressive evolution towards a hegemonic conception of management. Rather the discourse of practising managers within the AIM reveals a continual unresolved wrestling with rival conceptions of possible managerial identities as administrators, leaders, professionals and even workers, and how the AIM was continually frustrated in articulating its own institutional identity as a ‘society of managers’.

Keywords::

• Australian management history
• management profession
• management discourse theory
• Lacanian discourse theory
• management identity
• Australian Institute of Management

Notes

^1.Berle and Means, The Modern Corporation, 131; Burnham, The Managerial Revolution, 95; Chandler, The Visible Hand, 492; Galbraith, The New Industrial State, 238; Bell, Post-Industrial Society, 20.

^2.Yorston, Control in the Corporation, 233–235; Yorston, Limited Liability Companies, 52; also Yuill, Organisation and Management; Byrt, The Idea of Management; Byrt and Masters, The Australian Manager. Yuill was head of management studies at RMIT Melbourne and Byrt was professor at the graduate school of business administration at Melbourne University.

^3.Fleming et al., The Big End of Town, 224.

^4.Wheelwright and Miskelly, Anatomy of Australian Manufacturing, 1–5; Wheelwright, Ownership and Control; Crough, Money, Work.

^5. E.g. Wright, The Management of Labour; Cochrane, “Company Time: Management.”

^6. See Clark, “Management Fashion,” and Heusinkveld et al., “Management Ideas.”

^7.Lacan, Ecrits, 671–698; Driver, “Encountering the Arugula Leaf,” 495–497; Laclau, “Ideology and Post-Marxism,” 105–109.

^8.Laclau and Mouffe, Hegemony and Socialist Strategy, 125–129, 134–135.

^9.Fleming et al., The Big End of Town, 202–203.

^10.Rolfe, The Controllers, 31–34, 52–55; Hunter, “Australian Monopolies Legislation,” 14.

^11.Milne, “Accountants not in Public Practice,” 36–42.

^12.Sheridan, Mindful Militants, 53; Scherer, “Professional Engineers,” 156.

^13.Lloyd, The Organization of Engineering Work, 3.

^14. See Henderson, “General Ideas on Organisation,” and Wainwright, “Administration: Policy,” for examples of how the term management is used as a synonym for administration.

^15.Carr, “Towards a Profession of Management,” 464.

^16. For the implementation of Taylorism see Wright, “Taylorism Reconsidered,” also Nettle, “Management Control in Australia,” 55–63. It is important to note that the NSW Railway Commission Chief James Fraser, who did the most to introduce scientific management methods in the railways, relied on appeals to patriotism to justify his policies – see Hearn, “Productivity and Patriotism.” Taksa, in “Matter of Timing,” argues that Taylorism had a broader cultural significance in terms of ‘employer and employee’ relations despite its limited application. My point is that unlike the US in Australia Taylorism was not effective as a means of framing a professional management identity. Nyland in “Taylorism and the Mutual Gains Strategy” shows that Taylorism was potentially anti-employer, and was not necessarily anti-union. Evidence of business hostility to the managerialist aspirations of Taylorism (see Nelson, Managers and Workers; Nadworny, Scientific Management) is ignored by labour historians to the extent they adopt the conflationary ‘employer’ focus noted above.

^17.Wright, The Management of Labour, 20–25.

^18.Guillen, Models of Management, 227–252; Nettle, “Management Control in Australia,” 63–69.

^19.Matthews, “Socio-Political Aspects,” 5.

^20.Hay, “The Institute of Public Affairs,” 207.

^21. See Gepp, “An Economic Research and Advisory Council,” and “The Scientist in Industrial Administration.”

^22. The stories about Lewis were legendary and even made into a play. See Blainey, The Steel Master. Storey was the director of GMH, of aircraft production during the War, then head of Repco. Hard work drove him to an early death at the age of 58 in 1954.

^23. Coombs Report in Manufacturing and Management (M&M), 15/1/49, 230. The statistics were also quoted in this report.

^24. Industrial Institute of Management (IIM), Melbourne, 1st Annual Report, 1941–42, 6–8.

^25.Rogers, A History of the Foundation and Development of the AIM, 41–70.

^26.Fogarty, Leaders in Management, 10–11.

^27.Rogers, A History of the Foundation and Development of the AIM, 17–19.

^28. IIM, 2nd Annual Report, 1943, 4.

^29.Storey, “Administrative Practice.” This was based on a speech delivered to the Second Annual conference of Victorian Regional Group, IPA, November 1951; Geoffrey Remington – a life, editorial, in Australian Journal of Public Administration 27, 2008, 195–204.

^30.Coombs, “The Economic Aftermath of War.”

^31.Manufacturing and Management, 16 December 1946, 242–243; 15 November 1946, 210–211.

^32. Manufacturing and Management, 15 July 1946, 3; 15 September 1948, 97.

^33.Storey, “Industry's Responsibility,” 7.

^34.Storey, “Administrative Practice,” 31–32.

^35.Gepp, “Economic Research Advisory Council,” 4; “Business Cannot Afford,” 590–581.

^36.Storey, “Industry's Responsibility,” 6–7.

^37.Lewis, “Industrial Efficiency”; Kemp, Big Businessmen, 37–38, 171.

^38.Gepp, “The Scientist in Industrial Administration,” 59.

^39.Iverson, Leaders of Commerce.

^40.Management News (AIM Sydney Division), August 1951, 3.

^41.Management News, June 1949, 19.

^42.Management News, September 1949, 3; April 1950, 11.

^43.Rogers, A History of the AIM, 38.

^44.Manufacturing and Management, March 1948, 309.

^45.Australian Factory, 1 October 1958, 18.

^46.Management News, September 1952, 3.

^47. An address by Storey in 1942 quoted by Alexander in, “The Foreman,” 5.

^48.Casey, “Address to IIM,” 23.

^49.Management News, July 1949.

^50.Storey, “Industry's Responsibility,” 15.

^51.Management News, August 1954, 6.

^52.Ellis, “Education for Industry,” 29.

^53.Storey, “Administrative Practice,” 31–32

^54.Management News, October 1951, 3.

^55.Urwick, “Training for Management”; Urwick, “University Management Training.”

^56.Management News, September 1952, 3; February 1968, 1–10.

^57.Kemp, Big Businessmen.

^58.Hunter, “The Australian Monopolies Legislation,” 9; Beck, Public Accountants in Australia, 22; Gibson, Disclosure by Australian Companies, 73.

^59.Parker, “Lyndall Urwick's.”

^60. In his foreword to Slim's (1957) speech. He always liked to bring out Slim's views on leadership in his criticism of American management professors. See Urwick, “In Defence,” 497; Urwick, “Why Classicists Endure,” 14.

^61.Slim, “Leadership in Management,” 7, 13–14.

^62.Rydges, 1 January 1958, 5.

^63.Management News (Supplement), January 1952, 3.

^64.Crichton Brown, “The Accountant,” 44.

^65.Dunlop, “Management and the Board,” 11.

^66.Management News, September 1954, 2; March 1961, 7.

^67.Clark, History of Australia Vol. 4, 36–41.

^68.Vernon, “Secondary Industry,” 62–77; Haig, “Australian Economic Growth,” 31; Wadham, “Primary Production.” The problem through the 1950s got bad enough that the government in 1960 set up a standing committee on productivity and tried to sponsor ‘productivity groups’ in industry.

^69.Bourke, “Notes on Time Study.”

^70. See Kangan, “Group Incentive Systems,” 20; Kangan, “Letter from President,” 2. Meyer Kangan spoke with some authority on the problem. He was president in Sydney of the Australian Methods Engineers Association and the Institute of Personnel Management (IPMA).

^71. Time study was typically carried out by untrained costing clerks and accountants, or on the basis of foremen's estimates. See, Alford, “Methods Engineering,” and Bannester, “Production Control?” In 1956 the AMEA expressed its outrage at the number of unqualified ‘typists, clerks and others’ who claim to be methods engineers or work study officers. See Survey on Work Study Practice, Australian Methods Engineer, December 1956, 3–6. When AMEA changed its name to the Institute of Industrial Engineers and tried to introduce professional standards in 1959 it led to a decline in membership. See Australian Factory, December 1959, 7. On the opposition of the Institute of the Engineers, to the IIE and its negative effects see Seager “Just in Time”; Young, “Engineering Managers.”

^72. See Benning, “Personnel Management,” 11. He states ‘the chief obstacle’ personnel officers face is ‘the ‘antagonistic attitude of most departmental line managers, supervisors and foremen’. See also Kangan, “Status of Personnel Officers.” Personnel officers and welfare officers were taken more seriously in the public service. See Pickett, “Aspects of Personnel.”

^73.Management News, February 1958.

^74.Management News, April 1951, June 1957.

^75.Manufacturing and Management, August 1950, 63–4; Smart, AIM Victoria, 5–6.

^76.Manufacturing and Management, November 1948, 146.

^77.Management Diary (AIM Melbourne Division), April 1963; Management News, January 1961.

^78.Management News, April 1960, March 1968.

^79.Management News, June 1961, September 1961.

^80.Management News, January 1962, 2. Renwick also agrees with Webster's comments: Management News, February 1962, 1.

^81.Management News, October 1967; Also AIM News (AIM NSW Division), 6 May 1970, 1.

^82.Guillen, Models of Management, 80–88.

^83.Management News (Supplement), May 1950, 11.

^84.Management News, March 1951.

^85.Management News, June 1961.

^86.Nettle, “Management Control in Australia,” 111–115.

^87.Boucher, “Aggressive Marketing.”

^88.Post, “American Road to Capitalism,” 113–116; Layton, The Revolt of the Engineers, 139.

^89.Walker, Management Training; Boyce, National Study Project.

^90.Fogarty, Leaders in Management, 30–32.

^91.Coles, “Management Education for Engineers”; Young, “Engineering Managers.”

^92.Management News, May 1959.

^93.Management News, March 1951. Walker later became a vice president of the AIM in Sydney. For similar views see Management News, April 1955.

^94. Report of AIM general management conference, Management News, October 1955.

^95.Nettle, “Management Control in Australia,” 116–118.

^96.Management News, March 1968, 1.

^97.Management News, March 1961. Also Manufacturing and Management, December 1953.

^98. Urwick's output on this theme was copious e.g. Management News, October 1966; AIM News, September 1972, March 1973, May/June 1973. No doubt he would have inspired delegates preparing for the professionalisation conference in November 1973.

^99.Laclau, “Ideology and Post-Marxism,” 106.

^100.Pym, “Professional Man-Power.”

^101.Australian Financial Review, 11 November 1969.

^102.Ware, NSW Director's Overseas Trip Report, 6–8.

^103.AIM News, editorial, November 1969, 2.

^104.Boyce, National Study Project, 3.

^105.Beckingsale and Co., Australian Board of Directors, 10; Beckingsale and Co., Board of Directors, 8–10.

^106.Management News, September 1969, 3. According to R. Bertsch most opposition came from ‘conscientious middle managers’, ‘frustrated by the prevailing culture of “old boyism”’. Also Australian Financial Review, 2 June 1969, 2 February 1966, 10 February 1966.

^107.Australian Financial Review, 24 March 76.

^108.Australian Financial Review, 24 March 76

^109.AIM News, April 1972.

^110.Ware, NSW Director's Overseas Trip Report, 16.

^111.Fogarty, Leaders in Management, 19.

^112.Fogarty, Leaders in Management, 20.

^113. Membership survey, AIM News, August 1974. General management was twice as popular as the next best marketing. Professional (individual) members were 94% of the total.

^114.AIM News, 23 May 1970, 11.

^115.AIM News, 4 June 1970, 3, April 1972.

^116.AIM News, 1 December 1970.

^117.Walker, Management Training, 19.

^118.Devon Mills, Report 1970, 36.

^119.MacKay, A Study of Attitudes, 2.

^120.MacKay, A Study of Attitudes, 7.

^121.MacKay, A Study of Attitudes, 11.

^122.Stanley, Report of Manager, 6–10.

^123.AIM News, March 1972.

^124.Management Diary, January–February 1973, 1.

^125.Fogarty, Leaders in Management, 37.

^126.Barr, Report to Council, 1.

^127.Barr, Report to Council, 3.

^128.Barr, Report to Council, 4.

^129. Director's comments attached to Barr, Report to Council, 1.

^130.Barr, Report to Council, Attachments to Report, No. 4 Administrative Management Group, 1–2.

^131.Barr, Report to Council, 4.

^132.Barr, Report to Council, Attachments to Report No 1 and 2 Bendigo and Ballarat Branches, 1–2.

^133. Director's comments attached to Barr, Report to Council, 2.

^134. AIM Victoria, Report on the Cowes Conference, 17^th–19^th March 1972, 8.

^135. AIM Victoria, Letter to J. R. Stanley, 14 March 1972.

^136. Stanley wrote that special interest groups like the AMG and the PDMG ‘do not have a high priority for the AIM’, ‘They are only of interest to their members’ and should be disbanded if they don't meet member's needs. He preferred the idea of ‘floating activity groups’. AIM Victoria, Report on the Cowes Conference, 5.

^137. 1st Conference of Professional Members Report, Management Diary, December 1973, 1–4.

^138.Management News, August 1972, 3

^139.Management News, August 1973, 2, February 1975, 3. Also Management Diary, December 1974, 26–27.

^140.Management Diary, May 1975, 12.

^141.Canberra Comments, January 1975, May 1975.

^142.Management Review, June 1979, 1.

^143.Management Review, April 1988, 7–8.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Denis Jon Nettle

Denis Nettle (Ph.D. Macquarie University 1990) is a senior lecturer in Management at Victoria University Melbourne. His research interests include management history, management identity, industrial relations and labour history and his work has appeared in Labour and Industry.