Search

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine the HRD practices of multinational enterprises (MNEs) operating in Australia to understand the value that MNEs place on investment in their human capital, particularly managerial talent.Design/methodology/approach Drawing on a representative sample of 211 MNEs operating in Australia, this paper investigates the extent (using frequencies) and determinants (using logistic regression analysis) of training and development expenditure, management development strategies, talent management and succession planning policies.Findings The findings suggest that less than 20 per cent of MNEs operating in Australia are investing over 4 per cent of their annual pay bill on training and development. Furthermore, almost a quarter of firms invest less than 1 per cent in training and development. However, most MNEs invest in their managers and those with high potential through the use of management development programmes, talent management strategies and succession planning. Interestingly, in comparison to US MNEs, Australian MNEs were less likely to use management development or talent management programmes for senior management or high performing staff.Research limitations/implications The current study is cross-sectional and represents a snapshot of MNEs’ HRD practices at one point in time. The study measured the perceptions of the most senior HR manager and did not include the views of other organisational participants. The authors suggest the need for future research studies that incorporate longitudinal research designs and the views of different organisational actors.Practical implications HR managers or HRD specialists need to develop a strong understanding of the Australian institutional context, as well as demonstrate the importance/business case for an integrative approach to HRD.Originality/value This paper fulfils an identified need to study the HRD practices of MNEs operating in Australia, particularly focusing on the value that MNEs place on their human capital. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Improving staff performance is an issue in services for people with intellectual disability. Practice leadership, where the front line leader of a staff team focuses on service user outcomes in everything they do and provides coaching, modeling, supervision and organisation to the team, has been identified as important in improving staff performance. To date this finding is based only on self-report measures. Methods This paper describes and tests an observational measure of practice leadership based on an interview with the front-line manager, a review of paperwork and observations in 58 disability services in Australia. Results The measure showed good internal consistency and acceptable inter-rater reliability. Practice leadership was associated with staff practice and outcomes for service users. The observed measure of practice leadership appears to be a useful tool for assessing whether leadership within a service promotes enabling and empowering support by staff. It was found to discriminate higher and lower performing services in terms of active support. Conclusions The measure had good reliability and validity although some further testing is required to give a complete picture of the possible uses and Conclusions The measure had good reliability and validity although some further testing is required to give a complete picture of the possible uses and reliability of the measure. The measure is potentially useful in contexts of both research and service development. The confirmation of previous findings from self-report measures that practice leadership is related to the quality of staff practice and outcomes for service users has implications for policy and practice in terms of the training of managers and structures for organisational management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Australia, like other democracies, has long sought to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of procurement for national defence. A recent review exhorted Defence procurement managers to exert greater 'commercial discipline.' Similar calls have been made in other countries. This paper tests such public sector emulation of commercial practice by comparing the relative effectiveness of procurement via in-house arrangements; a public procurement agency detached from Defence; and privatized provision. We show that what matters is not public or private ownership but how ownership and management are integrated and what incentive structures are applied. ( JEL H44) [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]