Corporate management and the institutions of higher education - The Cain experience - Corporate management practices in higher education

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by Blitz

Corporate management principles are proposed to reshape Australian universities and colleges, with federal planning intended to increase pressure for administrative restructuring aligned to corporate practices. The article traces how corporate management was adopted by Labor governments in the early and mid-1980s to secure a responsive, loyal, and competent public service. It analyzes the Cain experience in Victoria, linking accountability and performance testing to quantifiable objectives and managerial hierarchies, then examines problems when these separations clash with universities’ participatory governance.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages4

Reading Time10 min

AccessFree to download

The Cain experience

Corporate management origins and key features

Application to the Australian public service

The problems in higher education

Separation of policy and operational roles

Participatory governance in universities

Corporate management and theinstitutions of higher education There are indications that the Federal Government is planning to bringstrong pressures on the universities and colleges to alter theiradministrative structures to fall in line with corporate managementpractices and to introduce the management philosophies of privateindustry into their administrations.Already some institutions have fallenin line and others are preparing the ground for change. This article examines the background to the introduction of theadministrative structures of the corporate sector to the public service inAustralia and the implications this has for the universities and colleges. Corporate management was seizedupon by the State and Federal LaborGovernments in the early and mid 1980sas a means of assuring the effective im-plementation of Labor policies.The ex-perience of the Whitlam Government(1972-5)where the public service had ef-fectively delayed or sabotaged many ofthe Whitlam initiatives or simply failed tocarry them out through sheer in-competence,was fresh in the minds of theLabor politicians.They wanted a respon-sive,loyal and competent public serviceand one of the means of achieving thiswas to be the introduction of the 'effi-cient’methods of the private sector in thepublic service. # The Cain experience John Cain's government in Victoriawas the first to apply corporate manage-ment practices to the public service ad-ministration because they were seen to of-fer an administrative framework whichhad built in devices for ensuring account-ability and for testing performance i.e.for making sure that government policyinitiatives would be implemented and forpin-pointing those responsible if theywere not implemented.When the HawkeGovernment was elected in 1983 it tookimmediate steps to implement its electionpledge to reform the public service.TheGovernment's intentions were outlined inthe paper Reforming the AustralianPublic Service which was directed at ap-plying the managerial practices of theprivate sector to the public service.Itspecifically sought to ensure ‘streamliningthe central system for organising humanand financial resources to accommodategreater ministerial involvement andmanagement flexibility.2 As a result ofthese developments corporate manage-ment practices have swept through theVictorian and the Commonwealth publicservices and spread to the other states. Page 10 Australian Universities'Review,No.2,1988 Corporate management has its genesisin the administrations developed by thelarge corporations of the United States inthe early years of this century.Over theyears it has developed quite a specific ad-ministrative style for the functioning ofprivate companies where the end result —profit —is the key performanceindicator. In the classic corporate managementapproach the key operators are themanagers as distinct from the floorworkers.Policy directions flow down theline from the general manager advised bya group of middle level managers(the cor-porate group)to the managers of eachshop floor.Under this system the floorworkers have no say in policyformulation. The main distinguishing features of thisstructure are the emphasis on quantifiableobjectives,clear role specifications andthe testing of the implementation of theobjectives by some form of performanceindicators.In theory this enables respon-sibility for good or bad performance to betargeted on specific individuals or depart-ments,remembering that the whole aimof the operation is to secure a profitableproduct. In this system managers pass through ahierarchy eventually(for some)reachingthe peak of general manager.However,this peak will most likely not be reached inthe same company because transfers andpromotions to other companies are an ac-cepted part of the system.It is assumedthat ‘managerial expertise'can be usedacross a variety of companies —thebasics of management being applicablealmost to any situation.Thus a manageris not required to have any knowledge ofthe

FAQs

What is the main impetus for introducing corporate management into Australian higher education?

The Federal Government planned stronger pressures for universities and colleges to adjust their administrative structures to align with corporate management practices and private-sector management philosophies.

How did corporate management spread through public services after the early 1980s?

Corporate management was taken up by State and Federal Labor governments in the early and mid-1980s, and later initiatives aimed to reform the public service. Practices then swept through Victorian and Commonwealth public services and spread to other states.

Why is applying corporate management techniques difficult in universities and colleges?

The approach assumes policy and operational roles can be separated, but educational institutions rely on staff participation in policymaking through committees and academic involvement in course, program, research, and resource decisions.

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by Blitz