Australia: the egalitarian corporate culture

This post’s topic is Australia, a rich country which once was part of the British Empire and currently is a part of the commonwealth. The contents are going to be organized around two aspects; the first one is an analysis of the Australian corporate culture as it is presented by Baird, Harrison, & Reeve (June 2007) on their publication “The culture of Australian organizations and its relation with strategy”. Then the question for this module is going to be answered, which relates to the stolen generations, a very sensible historical event that even today marks the life of the australian people.

To initiate this topic I want to take a quick look at the national culture of Australia. Their society is characterized as being individualistic, which means that they value “self-direction and independence” (Baird, Harrison, & Reeve, June 2007), and are also characterized by their high degree of egalitarianism, which means that they believe that “people should be treated the same and as equals” (Baird, Harrison, & Reeve, June 2007).

These two national characteristics give place to what the authors call “horizontal individualism”, which “recognizes the egalitarianism aspect of Australian culture and describes a culture where people are regarded as independent of each other and self-reliant and self-directed” (Baird, Harrison, & Reeve, June 2007). This aspect of the national culture is really important because according to Baird, Harrison, & Reeve (June 2007) it molds some aspects of the Australian organizational culture.

So how is characterized the Australian organizational culture? The results of the investigation conducted by the researchers herein quoted show that the Australian organizations tend to be Outcome oriented and respect people, which means that the organizations in Australia embrace values such as competitiveness and result orientation in the processes, and that they show fairness and tolerance towards people.

The values that are the “least prominent characteristics” (Baird, Harrison, & Reeve, June 2007) of the organizational culture of the Australian companies are the stability and the innovation, which means that the Australian companies are not to willed to experiment or to change nor to give a permanent stable employment.

The particular aspect of being characterized high in respect for people is due to the fact that since the national culture is egalitarian, the corporations are affected by this fact thus their respective organizational cultures lean towards the respect of the others according to the findings of Baird, Harrison, & Reeve (June 2007).

Also another interesting result of the study can also be explained by the national culture intricate relation with the corporate culture. According to the authors the “horizontally individualistic” societies do not like the individuals who “stick out” of the rest, which explains why even if Australians are individualistic, the corporate cultures rank low on competitiveness (which embodies values such as “being distinctive: being different from others” (Baird, Harrison, & Reeve, June 2007).

So once the depiction of the Australian corporate culture is complete, is time to answer the question for this module: Based in the movie “Rabbit proof fence” answer When removed from their families, the children were prepared for “a better life”, how is that true or false when considering different perspectives?

In order to have an introduction to the movie here is the trailer found in You Tube on FSMShowcase’s Channel:



In the trailer you could see some of that “better life” the children were promised, it was some sort of training camp, but was that a better life? And according to whom?

Well as for the movie goes according to the Australian representatives it was a better life that will allow them to have a “modern” life with all of it privileges. In other words they could start living as the rest of the modern world, far from the dessert, an easier and more comfortable life; earning a salary, and since these kids had no white parent since they had left them with their aboriginal families, the Australian state took responsibility to bring civilization to those kids. So far really good intentions, but remember “Hell is paved with good intentions”.

This idea of a better life was a better life for the white people and their chauvinistic practices considered aboriginal people not only different but inferior in all ways when compared to them. This is where the idea of a better life comes from.

But the better life for the kids was next to the person who raised them, not being forced to left home and their roots, what the modern people did not understood back then was the fact that the aboriginal people have their own ideas of how to live and what is good or bad for them will not necessarily will be good or bad for the white people.

So remember when talking about human groups there is not right or wrong in the way the people live or what are their rituals (as long as the members who participate in those rituals first do it willingly and second come out alive), there is only a different way of doing things.

For Further reading Check:

Baird, K., Harrison, G., & Reeve, R. (June, 2007). The culture of Australian organizations and its relation with strategy. International Journal of Business Studies, Vol. 15 , 15-41.

You Tube. (2009, December 22). Rabbit Proof Fence - Trailer. Retrieved from FSMShowcase Channel at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rB-jkydqADg